This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's no doubt that the leftists across America are using often-leftist judges to fight President Donald Trump.
One state alone, Colorado, clearly is demanding that judges in black robes rule the nation instead of the duly elected president, having gone to court 41 times already against the president.
The result is there's been a flood of rulings, both for and against Trump's agenda, from the lower courts. And because of the attempt by states literally to take over the functions of the White House, deciding foreign policy, border security issues and more, a lot of battles have landed on the Supreme Court's emergency docket.
The result of that was that dozens of judges, anonymously, have "whined" to the public that they don't like what's going on, that they're not getting their way as they want, that Trump's White House actually is being given permission to act as the White House.
It was the New York Times that publicized the judges' politics.
That publication said at issue are "the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts."
That emergency docket, a fraction of those judges on lower courts complained, wasn't being used property.
"Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office," the report said.
But Mike Davis, of the rule-of-law-protecting Article III Project, says those judges are out of line and either the Supreme Court or Congress needs to punish them.
"Judges have a modest, but crucial, role. They resolve cases and controversies of the parties before them with redressable claims. That is their Article III power. Nothing more; nothing less. Their job is not to run crying anonymously to reporters because the Supreme Court is acting in a way that these inferior court snowflakes despise. Chief Justice Roberts must issue an order to judges to stop talking to the media, either on the record or anonymously," he explained in a column at the Federalist.
"Congress also must levy severe consequences against these judicial embarrassments. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should open oversight inquiries to find out which anonymous and cowardly judges disgraced the bench through their pathetic public whining. If judges take off their judicial robes, climb into the political arena, and throw political punches, they should expect political counterpunches. Judges have life tenure to insulate them from political pressure, not so they can act like politicians in robes. Sadly, several dozen judges do not understand this basic tenet of our republic, and they must face public shaming."
The Times cited "more than three dozen" of the hundreds of federal judges because those are the ones who responded, claiming they were "confused" by the emergency orders from the high court.
Davis warned that the judges are violating the Code of Conduct for United States judges by "taking pot shots" at the Supreme Court.
"Some judges called Supreme Court reversals 'demoralizing,' while others whined that the Supreme Court's reversals at the very least created the perception of partisanship on the justices' part, as the Supreme Court mostly has been reversing rulings that had gone against Trump administration policies. One judge compared the relationship between the justices and that judge's district to 'a war zone,'" Davis explained.
There are about a thousand inferior judges, below the Supreme Court, who make rulings, and are bound by a code of conduct, which "prohibits judges from making political comments or even comments that a reasonable observer could view as such."
"The griping of inferior court judges stems from about two dozen rulings on the Supreme Court's emergency docket. This docket allows justices to pause orders from lower courts while the litigation proceeds. Radicals trying to grind to a halt President Donald Trump's electoral mandate repeatedly have run to district courts in leftist hellholes like the District of Columbia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and Boston. The judges there are overwhelmingly radical leftists. Even the Republican appointees are, for the most part, milquetoast because home-state Democrat senators can veto quality conservative nominees thanks to a Senate tradition known as the blue slip. The Supreme Court has correctly reversed absurd inferior court orders issued by judges who refuse to accept that President Trump is implementing an agenda for which the American people voted," Davis wrote.
He noted the "cowardly" comments as the judges were not identified.
"These judges fail to see the obvious: their accusing the Supreme Court of partisanship in such a blatantly unethical way explicitly reveals their own partisanship. The biased authors of the article make sure to underscore that nearly half of the Republican-appointed judges who responded to questions about the Supreme Court were critical. But the authors do not tell us, for instance, where these Republican appointees sit. If these judges are in blue bastions like Massachusetts, Illinois, California, or Oregon, they do not remotely resemble judicial conservatives," he added.
Davis warned, "Chief Justice John Roberts needs to get his judicial house in order. This latest New York Times drive-by shooting by anonymous federal judges is the most recent blatant example of out-of-control rogue judges sabotaging the federal judiciary, the presidency, and American voters."
