In the United States, the idea of monarchy doesn’t really hold up. On June 14th, protests erupted as President Donald Trump faced off against left-leaning demonstrators nationwide.
Some were shouting, “Trump has to go now!” displaying signs that likened him to dictators and compared U.S. immigration enforcement to his own “Gestapo.” Their criticism of perceived tyranny was loud, but one might wonder—if they genuinely oppose authoritarianism, wouldn’t they be wary of celebrating a judicial confrontation?
In a striking move on July 7th, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani assertively blocked Congress from cutting Medicaid funds through a legislative bill. The left’s reaction wasn’t outrage but rather applause.
“Good,” tweeted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He proclaimed that Democrats wouldn’t back down in the battle against Republicans’ alleged stealth efforts to restrict abortion.
Schumer’s comments suggested he endorsed Medicaid funding for abortions, which seems a bit disingenuous considering the party’s historical stance.
Judicial Activism
This selective outrage manifested further when, in April, a Wisconsin judge, Hannah Dugan, was arrested for reportedly attempting to shield Eduardo Flores Luis, an undocumented migrant previously deported, from federal authorities.
Although ICE had a valid warrant for his arrest, liberals opposed the move to hold Dugan accountable for her actions, arguing it was a political tactic.
Mitchell Sobiesky, in a piece for Milwaukee Independent, claimed that the Trump administration was weaponizing federal power against judges who deviated from its agenda.
If obstructing federal law has become part of regular court management, that’s indeed troubling.
Meanwhile, Milwaukee’s Democratic Mayor, Cavalier Johnson, expressed that the Trump administration intimidated immigrant communities.
“They are instilling fear within this neighborhood, and in immigrant communities across the nation,” Johnson remarked to reporters.
Yet, one could ask—what about the law-abiding American citizens who worry for their loved ones?
Is that fear irrelevant?
Judge Dugan, for her part, claimed “judicial immunity” ought to shield her from obstruction charges.
Judges are just one layer of the American judicial process, as Democrats seemed to recall when they stated, “No one is above the law.”
Embracing Activism
The Democratic Party’s lack of restraint in judicial matters is not new. For a long time, they’ve leaned on activist judges to enforce their policies on the populace.
Back in 1973, they used an accommodating Supreme Court to establish nearly fifty years of unregulated abortion access, dividing public opinion.
Similarly, in 2015, they leveraged the court to mandate same-sex marriage nationwide through Obergefell v. Hodges.
But under Trump, judicial challenges seem to have intensified.
Last year, Trump found himself juggling campaigns while concurrently defending against various criminal allegations and lawsuits.
Judicial overreach became evident again when a rogue district court judge issued a sweeping injunction that hampered Trump’s agenda without broader consensus, drawing scrutiny from the Supreme Court, which deemed such actions “highly likely” overreaches.
The Authority of the Courts
Even after the Supreme Court lifted a nationwide injunction against deportations in June, Judge Brian Murphy insisted on allowing six undocumented defendants to challenge their deportation.
This even drew raised eyebrows from liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who wondered how the district court could align with the highest court’s orders.
Strikingly, even the Supreme Court isn’t impervious to political pressures.
Later, one of Biden’s appointees, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, called the majority’s ruling “deeply dangerous,” arguing that it granted the President an “arbitrary power” that threatened the constitutional framework.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett countered that Jackson’s views jeopardized judicial precedents spanning over two centuries.
It certainly raises questions about the judiciary’s direction.
The absence of a king in America is a significant principle. But it seems some have blurred the lines between “your honor” and “your dignity.”
