Federal judges across the country are being cherry picked in a jurisdiction shopping scheme in furtherance of Democrat’s lawfare campaign against President Trump. Its goal is to use Democrat judges who can be relied upon to ignore the Constitution and the law in favor of imposing Democrat policy, subverting Trump’s legitimate Article II powers. In essence, district court judges are imposing their Democrat political preferences, appointing themselves president. In so doing, they’re preventing President Trump from exercising his Constitutional powers and enacting the will of the voters.

Graphic: DarkAngelPolitics.com Meme Screenshot

Among their tactics are issuing temporary injunctions, which generally can’t be appealed, on the way to permanent injunctions. This is compounded by their issuance of nationwide injunctions that apply far beyond their limited local jurisdictions. Judge James Boasberg even wanted to stretch his jurisdiction to international waters as he ordered planes carrying Tren de Aragua gangsters on route to El Salvador to reverse course. He had no idea of the plane’s position, fuel state, the weather or the danger such order could cause the flight crews and security officers, but he didn’t care. He’s one of about 300 lowest level federal judges, and his word is law!

Trump wisely did not comply.

It seems certain federal district judges have no such powers. They certainly have no power to usurp the express constitutional powers of the POTUS, and there is precedent that addresses that, though there appears to be no precedent on their imposition of nationwide orders and no constitutional empowerment. Until Donald Trump, it appears few, if any, federal judges so blatantly violated the Constitution, so there aren’t volumes of decisions on that issue.

The Congress is working on bills that would clip the wings of out of control, partisan Democrat politicians in robes, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, recently appearing on Trey Gowdy’s Fox “Sunday Night in America,” explained just how vital reigning them in has become:

[Gowdy] So as a constitutional law expert, what are the limits on executive power, and is this tension we’re seeing really what our founders envisioned and built into the system?”

“I think it is to a certain degree, Trey,” [Johnson] replied. “I mean, I think you have a separation of powers. We have checks and balances. We have three co-equal branches of government, and they’re supposed to sort of do this, this tug-of-war when you have difficult questions. But I do think that the line is being crossed right now. I mean, I used to litigate constitutional law cases, high-profile cases in the courts. I did it for 20 years, and I ran into activist judges all along the way. I would litigate religious liberty defense cases, for example, and I would run into a Clinton-appointed judge or an Obama-appointed judge. And, you know, I had a judge look one time look down his glasses at me and say, counselor, I know that’s what the Constitution says, but we’re doing something different.”

Surprised?  You shouldn’t be. Read on:

“So, you know, I never walked out of those courtrooms thinking that I could impeach those judges,” he continued. “I just got as quickly as I could to the appellate court to get them overturned. But something is happening right now, Trey, that I think we all have to acknowledge. You’ve got a lot of activist judges, probably more than ever, and we were looking at the statistics, and the White House has pointed this out, 62% for example, of the federal injunctions that have been handed down in the last century were handed down against President Trump, and 92% of those were done by partisan Democrat-appointed judges. So, something’s amiss [emphasis mine].

It’s reasonable to believe 8% of those judges were honest, but misinterpreted the law, but thinking the 92% were doing anything other than ignoring the law and ruling for their political party stretches credulity.

These judges, and the Democrat Party, know most, if not all, of their rulings will be overturned, but that takes time. All the while they’re preventing Trump from acting as President. They’re hoping they’ll seize one house of Congress in the midterms so they can largely keep him from cutting off their taxpayer funding and political power.  They like corruption, fraud and theft. They need it, and they’re not going to let a trifle like the Constitution stand in their way.

Justice Roberts seems more interested in upholding what he apparently sees as the integrity of the Supreme Court and federal courts than correcting this very real attack on the Constitution and separation of powers. His reluctance to deal with the issues this judicial fraud raises is having the opposite effect. Should the Supreme Court do anything less than quickly and permanently enjoin judges from issuing nationwide injunctions and usurping the powers of the POTUS, the consequences will be far worse than a mere wrongly decided ruling.

On a different subject, if you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

[H/T American Thinker]