In principle, every American citizen is equal before the law, judged by facts and legal precedent rather than by who they are, how much money they have, or any other extenuating condition or circumstance.
Justice is theoretically blind to such things.
Theories aside, in our current reality, lady justice is neither blind or eyesight impaired. Besides being able to peer easily through her now tattered blindfold, she has been critically ill and in and out of a self-induced coma for years.
Perhaps the main reason that nothing has been done to fix our justice system is that Lady Justice has dabbled in politics so long, she is no longer able to distinguish or separate the law from politics. Evidence of this is pervasive, especially where politicians or celebrities have stood accused of crimes. With few exceptions, most politicians and the politically connected elite continue to side-step the gavel of judgment and justice.
While those with celebrity, power, or deep pockets tend to plea their cases out before actually entering the legal system. Others, who aren't so equipped, actually enter the legal system by being railroaded into accepting plea bargain agreements – onerous in either of two extremes, too lenient a sentence or far too harsh for the alleged crime. This hardly paints a picture of liberty and justice for all since people aren't treated the same, even before the rule of law is applied to their particular cases.
One of the reasons that our laws aren't uniformly and universally applied is something called “selective enforcement.”
Wayte v. United States 470 U.S. 598 (1985) said:
In our criminal justice system, the Government retains “broad discretion” as to whom to prosecute. […] This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.
Does that sound like an equal application of the rule of law to you?
Beyond the obvious issues with equal and equitable application and relief under the law, something far more sinister is underway today – and its effects are crippling our Republic.
Lower court judges with lifetime tenure have unjustly appointed themselves the arbiters of national policy. Do they know that they are creating legal chaos and undermining the quality of the justice system? Yes. Do they care if their ideologically driven rulings are distorting the constitutional balance among the co-equal branches of our Republic?
No, not in the least. Why? There are no consequences for ‘getting it wrong,' period.
The famously left-leaning 9th circuit has been overruled by the SCOTUS 81% of the time and the 6th circuit tops that with a rate of 84% which is just slightly above the 83.3% level of all circuit courts combined. If judges get the law wrong that much, shouldn't they be disciplined, term-limited, or fired? If performance were this poor in any other line of business, we would all expect termination. Taking a solemn oath to uphold the law is arguably a more severe breach over just doing your job poorly, but ignoring violations or failing to hold judges accountable is preposterous and unacceptable.
Even when it is so clearly evident that they have partisan policy outcomes in mind versus being neutral parties who interpret the law as it relates to the actions of the elected branches, the net goal and results successfully handcuff the executive and legislative branches until the Supreme court can countermand their overreaching decisions. Some of these cases never make it to the Supreme Court and those that do take months or even years to wind their way through the legal system.
If you don't believe this is a massively growing concern for our Republic's survival, consider this – Nationwide (universal) injunctions didn't exist before 1963. The first use of this far-reaching injunctive relief was during the Reagan presidency and, in fact, during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 42 administrations nationwide injunctions averaged no more than 1.5 per year. The average count per year increased to 2.5 under Obama. To put this in the proper partisan perspective, since his inauguration in January 2017, President Trump has been hit with 30 nationwide injunctions—more than any other president in our history – more than an 8-fold increase above Obama's yearly averages.
James Madison warned against this in Federalist 47: “[A]ccumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
It is perhaps the most illuminating of ironies that leftists and the mainstream media complain that president Trump is an authoritarian and a host of other nonsensical and unfounded allegations. But they are silent about the anti-constitutional judicial activism and the sheer number of nationwide injunctions against his administration – why? Because the last 30 national orders were handed down by all leftist leaning activist judges. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend?” Which of course begs the question, if your fellow Americans across this nation voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and he won the presidency the same way Bill Clinton did – by the electoral college, how can the president of these United States be your enemy? Perhaps that is an excellent place to start your therapy.
Either the rules and laws apply equally to all, or they are merely suggestions. As a nation founded upon the rule of law, all Americans, of any political persuasion, should be lighting up the congressional switchboard to demand that their representatives stop nationwide injunctions. If activists can shop their case to any court inclined to agree with their cause, and can, by such action, effectively render moot the power of the established executive and legislative powers – tyranny will increase from predominance to pandemic.
To be blatantly clear, it wouldn't matter who was in the white house or any state's governor's mansion or hold party majorities in state or local government legislatures – if a court – any court, can overrule executive powers or legislation in a blanket fashion, all Americans should find it terrifying. Our system of representation is a balance against the accumulation of power in any one government body. Until judges can be constrained, censored, or removed from office for activist decisions of policy or ideology, over neutral application of the law, elections to effect party majority mean nothing. After all, what good is having a representative of your choice in Congress or in the office of the Presidency if activist judges can usurp their power?
Most, if not all, on the left and many on the right, expect and want the government to provide healthcare insurance, social safety nets, new definitions of rights and a host of other concerns. But doing so is contrary to what the founders intended for this grand experiment of the United States of America. It's always painful to see millions of Americans marching in support of Abortion as a human right, elevating socialist policies as an improvement over our representative Republic form of government. Painful because it remains a most illogical argument – that people you don't know could ever spend your money, control your property, or suddenly be motivated to place your life, liberty, or rights in any higher regard than what our creator has already endowed each of us. The government is incapable of acting in your best interest. It only operates in the interest of more power for its institutions and partisan goals. And yet millions are donated and people volunteer their precious time to elect people on the basis of the words of a stranger alone – not to mention a politician, who by the very title intends to live off of your hard earned dollars as long as possible.
Also, many Americans either don't know or choose to forget that our Constitution and Bill of Rights don't define or declare our rights as citizens but rather memorialize what powers and rights that We The People explicitly grant to government. To that end, please do your duty as Patriots – call your representatives and tell them to pass legislation to ensure the separation of powers as our founders intended.
President Trump has appointed 93 great conservative judges from the circuit courts to the Supreme court but having conservative judges won't guarantee the separation of powers remains intact. For our system of representative government to work, legislation must be passed to prohibit injunctive relief that concentrates power in one branch of government.
There are two bills that have been introduced at the federal level:
H.R.4927 – Introduced in House (02/05/2018),
Sponsor- Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA-7),
Still in the House Judiciary Committee
This bill limits the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions. Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only: (1) to the parties to the case before that district court, or (2) in the federal district in which the injunction is issued.
H.R.2660 – Introduced in House (05/25/2017),
Sponsor: Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL-6),
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN-3], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA-7], Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5], Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8], Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4], Rep. Bishop, Mike [R-MI-8], Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4], Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC-3], Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5]
Source: Congress.gov, 115th Congress
This bill provides exclusive original jurisdiction to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for cases regarding an executive order, action, or memorandum.
Call these representatives and ask them to make these bills a priority. If your representative isn't a sponsor or co-sponsor, call or write to them and tell them to sponsor these bills. Also, please call your senators and ask them to introduce legislation to stop court ‘forum shopping' and to prohibit nationwide injunctions.
Congress is ineffective and has abdicated much of its legislative power to the executive branch, and the judiciary is only too happy to seize control over both the legislative and the executive branches. That is the essence of activism. These courts have claimed authority that We The People did not grant and like every single elected and unelected person serving in government – it's about time we remind them who gives government power in our Republic.
America is the greatest nation on Earth, but to keep it great, patriots must act to stop the federal courts from setting themselves above the law and dictating how we should live and what we should think. The elites in black robes want to redefine everything we are as Americans, so it's not going to be easy – it's going to take us coming together and working tirelessly for the good of our Republic.
Edmund Burke famously said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
We have done nothing for too long, and we are paying the price today. But it is not too late. The fight has only just begun.
Author: Jason Evans