Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman
(Post 2949732)
It’s Time For Congress To Stop The Judicial Sabotage Of Trump’s Agenda
A small group of Democrat activists, with the help of activist judges, are disrupting the court system because they didn’t win the election, and there is no other way for them to assert their power. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called it “sabotage” in a social media post that calls for Congress to step in with legislation to rein in judicial resistance.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/20...trumps-agenda/
|
Quote:
The U.S. government’s authority is intentionally separated into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so no single branch becomes too powerful. Our nation was not designed for a president to put forth ideas and ask the court’s permission. Yet that is what is happening. Certain, cherry-picked judges are taking over the rule of the country, mishandling the numerous legal challenges to nearly every aspect of President Donald Trump’s agenda.
|
What the article seems to suggest is that it is somehow that it is undemocratic that a democratically elected president whose measures enjoy a large support in the population gets challenged in the courts, it is overreach. Yet, what is it – resistance to the current rule, or the rule of the country? The article isn’t too clear on that.
Asking the court's permission, in the articles parlance, is a given - not in advance of course, but if a decision or a law seems to violate another law, it is not only the at the judges' discretion to intervene, it is their duty. A judge can't just go like "Meh, I'ma gonna reject that law because Trump". A legal challenge has to be justified and backed with argumentsa, and can of course be subject to legal challenges itself.
Trump has a majority in Congress and good chances that SCOTUS will be more conservative-leaning in most of its decisions.
So maybe it also has to do with the way the current president goes about government. Laws are complicated. There's a reason why they get debated, revised, amended, approved or rejected all the time. It looks complicated, but guess what, it is complicated and of course it’s a frustrating process that quite often seems needlessly elaborate. Part of it is to make sure that a new law holds water and is properly vetted. And if it’s a controversial law with involving lots of debate, there is even public opinion to deal with.
And yet, he prefers to rule by executive orders rather than by trying to put his agenda into laws. In the first weeks of his term, he signed 89 executive orders (compared to the 220 in total during his first term as president). Given the majorities he enjoys, there would be no pressing need to rush things through like he does. So, there are plausibly two major reasons for why he does it:
1) He either thinks that his decisions are perfectly right and justified and just have been stalled in the past by people hostile to him, and for political reasons, or
2) he or his advisors rush things through to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny.
3) he wants to take credit for implementing his projects himself, rather than letting Congress take it.
Make of that what you will. If a lot of decisions are taken within a very short time, don’t be surprised that a lot of decisions will get critisized.
