Conservative powerhouse Mark Levin is warning the country about the rise of “judicial supremacy.”
Many experts believe liberal activist judges are overreaching in an attempt to stop President Trump’s agenda.
American Greatness reported that Daniel Horowitz and others have recommended, Congress could easily restrict the jurisdiction of lower federal courts to prevent them from interfering with the president’s authority under section 1182(f), or simply circumventing courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Our increasingly supine Congress, however, has shown little interest in protecting its prerogatives from usurpation by administrative agencies or activist judges, so this “solution” is a chimera.
Activist federal judges could also be curbed by ending life tenure or making their decisions subject to legislative veto, but either of those options would require amending the Constitution.
Given the difficulty of achieving ratification by 38 states, the prospect of constitutional amendments to rein in rogue judges, as advocated by Mark Levin and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, is even more remote.
What about impeachment of lawless judges? Ann Coulter and others have urged that the judges who blocked Trump’s travel ban be impeached. Is this a viable remedy? Under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges “hold their offices during good behaviour.”
The Framers intended to give federal judges life tenure, but also treated them as “civil officers” subject to impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” as set forth in Article II, section 4. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist79 that the potential for impeachment of federal judges represented “[t]he precautions for their responsibility,” and “the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character.”
Late last year then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced a new policy designed to stop illegal aliens from gaming the system by using America’s lax asylum laws to disappear into the heartland and out of the reach of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates. Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico,” she said in a statement at the time.
On Monday a federal judge blocked this policy, thus handing the Trump administration yet another defeat. The administration’s efforts to repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and deny asylum to seekers who cross into the U.S. illegally have all faced a similar fate.
And last week a federal judge in Washington issued a ruling in which she essentially “said it’s up to the U.S. government to prove why [detained illegal aliens] shouldn’t be released.”
Speaking later Monday evening about the latest ruling, renowned conservative political commentator and former Reagan administration official Mark Levin argued that the country isn’t being overrun with illegal aliens because of bad policy-making but rather because of the courts.
“You want to know why this country is beingoverrun?” he said. “Because of the federal courts interfering in immigration. They never did that with Obama. … When Arizona said, ‘You know what, we’re going to enforce federal immigration laws, whether Obama does it or not,’ the Supreme Court 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, said, ‘No, you’re not. The president gets to decide.’”
“So the new president decided, and now these courts say, ‘Actually, the president doesn’t get to decide. We get to decide.’ Every step of the way he’s fought by the courts!”