American's Real Constitutional Crisis: The Federal Judiciary!

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags:

  

The Pravda media is frothing at the mouth declaring Trump dismantling of the Deep State is causing a  ‘Constitutional Crisis’. Really?  Let's explore this.  

This week I published, DOGE, Trump, and The Federal Judiciary, Part V, saying:

Then two days later in the Southern District of New York, where a ham sandwich could be charged with a crime and found guilty, Judge Paul Engelmayer responded to a complaint by 19 state's Attorney's General that what DOGE was doing "presents a unique security risk to the States and State residents whose data is held", which is interesting logic as a way to prevent exposure of fraud and criminal activity, and the judge bought into that somehow believing the federal judiciary can tell the President of the United State he can't oversee the departments he's responsible for under the Constitution.  I'll tell you what, we'll come back to that. 

Access was limited to “civil servants with a need for access … who have passed all background checks and security clearances and all information security training” required by laws and regulations”............

Not only has he entered a "no access" judgement, he's ordered the immediate destruction of all data they've obtained thus far, in spite of the fact they've shown massive levels of fraudulent payments.  Why? 

This ruling is absolutely insane, and it must be considered illegal, or at the very least unethical.  His ruling was issued ex parte.  Only Democrat attorneys were present, no one from the Trump administration was given notice of this meeting, no one was allowed to argue for the administration, or even be in the room.   How can that be legal?  Also, where in the Constitution does it give this judge the authority to prevent the President of the United States and the new Secretary of the Treasury from having access to:

"any Treasury Department record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services.”

Their argument is the President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch, and anyone he appoints to review what federal agencies are doing is illegal, but the actions by those already there, who were appointed by former Presidents, are legal.    Does the word bizarre come to mind?

If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's being caused by these radical out of control judges.  In my DOGE, Trump, and The Federal Judiciary article I've already discussed Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who I consider to be particularly vile, but let's meet all of these lawfare judges.

 

• Judge Angel Kelley, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, nominated by President Joe Biden.......Kelley granted a restraining order against National Institute of Health (NIH) funding cuts. Senior Judge Amy Berman Jackson, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, nominated by President Barack Obama - Jackson recently made news by temporarily reinstated the fired head of the Office of the Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee......
• Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, nominated by President Barack Obama - A Democrat donor, McConnell is attempting to block another spending freeze from Trump and is even taking the extreme approach of threatening administration officials with criminal charges if it is not reversed. But McConnell is more than just a typical Democrat. He’s a committed activist......(Matt Vespa calls him a "left wing loon", and ya just gotta see the clips in that article.)
• Senior Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, nominated by President Bill Clinton-  Kollar-Kotelly boldly stood against Trump’s efforts to cut government excess by blocking DOGE from “obtaining access to certain Treasury Department payment records,” which includes an estimated 90 percent of federal payments.
• Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, nominated by President Barack Obama - Engelmayer blocked DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department payment system. In his ruling, Engelmayer forbade all political appointees, including the Treasury Secretary(!) from accessing Department of Treasury data.
•  Senior Judge George O’Toole Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, nominated by President Bill Clinton- O’Toole has already tried to buck Trump in two significant ways. First, he blocked Trump’s federal government employee buyout, even after 65,000 federal workers had already taken the offer. This prolonged a pause on the deferred resignation program.
• Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales, of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, nominated by President Barack Obama Gonzales made headlines by blocking the deportations of Venezuelan criminals to Guantanamo Bay.

The article goes on to cite what I can only call serious doubts about their commitment to the rule of law, along with their understanding about what's legal.  But their character has to also be seriously called into question.  More evidence for the need of a 28th Amendment to eliminate the Founding Fathers gravest error:  Lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.

In the meanwhile what's to be done?  I've recently come across what some consider a solution, injunction bonds.  According to this article an X user reveals how DOGE can beat left-wing activist judges at their own game, and overcome the damage done by the left in weaponizing the courts in recent years "activating a wave of radical judges", whose "blatant political activism is exposing just how corrupt and broken our judiciary has become".  Take a look…

Dan Huff:

@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds.

This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used! 

When I was in the White House, in Trump’s first term, I suggested this, but DOJ didn’t make it happen. Imagine if we had applied this to the travel ban – activists would think twice before blocking policies with potentially billions at stake. 

The government has expert economists who can easily price out the cost of policies like birthright citizenship or wasteful spending. Price injunction bonds fairly, and frivolous lawsuits become a financial risk, not a free pass. 

Without injunction bonds, the American people bear all the costs of activists and judges blocking the agenda they voted for.  Why should activists and judges get to overrule the American people with no penalty if they’re wrong? Our system wasn’t meant to work this way. 

For national injunctions, we’re talking bonds in the hundreds of millions or even billions. It will become prohibitive unless the activists have a slam dunk case.

If a judge tries to lowball the bond amount, it’s a quick and easy reversal given the unambiguous language in the federal rules.

The best part? This doesn’t block activists from court; it just stops them from using preliminary injunctions to pause government action based on arguments that might not hold up in an appellate court.

Dan will be keeping a close eye on this situation, so we encourage you to give him a follow by clicking here.

What if a a judge refuses to grant an injunction bond?  That decision can be appealed under an "abuse of discretion" standard, which may include "disciplinary action against the judge through the appropriate judicial channels." Will the proceeding be halted until the issue over an injunction bond is resolved?  I think so, but I'm not sure, as I had difficulty finding information about injunction bonds, and the wording in the stuff I found is anything but clear.  I'm not an attorney, but this certainly looks like an street worth going down.   

The concept of the rule of law by these judges is as flawed as it is for the Democrat party as a whole....it's called hypocrisy!   One more thing, in this article, No, Trump Does Not Have to Abide by a Mythical 'Judicial Supremacy', by Selwyn Duke where he states:

 Note here that Marbury was the 1803 SCOTUS opinion declaring that the judiciary must be the ultimate arbiter of laws’ and actions’ constitutionality and that, consequently, its rulings can constrain the other two governmental branches. Translation:  The courts gave the courts their trump card (and Trump card) power.  Not the Constitution — the courts themselves .................

So, no, President Trump doesn’t have to obey blatantly unconstitutional court opinions. This said, with how he’s shaking up the system and busy draining the bureaucratic swamp, it’s perhaps politically prudent to remedy the current judicial adventurism through the higher courts, as he’ll almost assuredly win on appeal. At some point, though, it will be time to drain that fetid judicial swamp and address the real constitutional crisis: the rule of judges who would be kings.

If there has to be an actual Constitutional Crisis, that being anything the Democrat party doesn't like, then let it be now!