Judicial Review Is Constitutional. Government by Injunction Is Not.
The Courts Cannot Be the Opposition Party
The Courts Cannot Be the Opposition Party
(I got fed up with ‘Judge-Shoppers’ and their clientele long ago - DD)
(Locke Step) - There is a difference between a court saying, “the government violated the law in this case,” and a court acting as a national policy brake for every citizen, agency, official, and dispute not before it.
The federal judiciary exists to decide cases and controversies. It does not exist to become a standing council of revision over the elected branches, an emergency room for disappointed political coalitions, or a supplier of what Congress refused, what voters rejected, and what agencies could no longer defend in public.
Judicial review is legitimate. Judicial government is not.
That line has become harder to hold because modern politics increasingly treats every major executive action as the opening round of litigation. A president acts. Opponents sue. A friendly district court is found. A national order follows. The administration races to the court of appeals or the Supreme Court. The policy question is converted into a litigation calendar, and the people are told that constitutional government is working.
Sometimes it is. Often, something else is happening.
The immediate fight has centered on universal injunctions, often called nationwide…
I can’t believe they act one way and then completely change their view after you lied to get there and you don’t know the difference between a man and woman is immediately removed