Unable to derail Donald Trump carrying out his Article II duties as a duly elected president, through endless legal maneuvers, a group of activist, left-leaning judges now appears determined to torch the credibility of the judiciary itself — all in a desperate attempt to undermine Trump’s success.
In an almost unbelievable move, 47 judges have accused the Supreme Court of mishandling cases related to Trump’s actions through its emergency docket.
The problem is simple — too many judges no longer view their role as interpreting the law, but as enforcing their own idea of what the “correct” (read: liberal/Democrat-friendly) outcome should be. The judiciary has been infected with activism masquerading as jurisprudence.
The fact that President Trump has faced legal challenges to nearly every major decision yet suffered only one minor setback at the Supreme Court speaks volumes about the strength of his team’s legal arguments. Their reasoning holds up because it’s grounded in the law — not ideology.
Yet, more and more rulings from lower courts read like political tantrums: “I don’t like it, therefore it’s unconstitutional.” That’s not how the rule of law works — that’s how toddlers govern. And in some cases, the results aren’t just misguided — they’re downright laughable.
When a federal judge recently ruled that President Trump could not mobilize the Illinois National Guard — despite his clear constitutional authority and a Ninth Circuit ruling (for now) upholding that power — the decision came with a truly absurd twist: a condescending, politically charged footnote that had nothing to do with the law:
Snarky asides in footnotes do not improve the persuasive effect of the opinion. I literally do not understand this one. Even if the President is right and “organized repeated, violent” attacks are ongoing against ICE, that just shows policy disagreement? What? That’s novel!t pic.twitter.com/Sy6HHQHOVr
— Eric W. (@EWess92) October 11, 2025
Even if the Court were to have credited Defendants’ version of the facts, Defendants still would not have any support for the conclusion that the organized, repeated, violent, and increasingly hostile attacks on ICE agents, their personal property, and ICE property suggests anything more than an opposition to immigration law enforcement and immigration policy, as opposed to the authority of the Government as a whole.
Think about this: If she’d have written “that the organized, repeated, violent, and increasingly hostile attacks on Blacks, their personal property, and their civil rights suggests anything more than an opposition to Blacks voting, as opposed to the authority of the Government as a whole,” we could have avoided Reconstruction altogether.
Similarly, the Whiskey Rebellion was merely a response to a federal tax on liquor, so it was unreasonable for Washington to call out the militia to suppress it.
This pattern of judicial resistance has only grown louder, as a solid six- or seven-vote majority on the Supreme Court quietly swats away these baseless, partisan challenges — often without so much as a comment — while Justice Brown churns out yet another 60-page manifesto insisting that the Supreme Court should dictate government policy.
The New York Times on Friday published a story with this headline: “Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders.” To write it, the reporters polled 65 federal judges, of which 47 allegedly “said said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office”:
In interviews, federal judges called the Supreme Court’s emergency orders “mystical,” “overly blunt,” “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.” One judge compared their district’s current relationship with the Supreme Court to “a war zone.” Another said the courts were in the midst of a “judicial crisis.”
A “war zone?” “Judicial crisis?” It’s always a “crisis” on the Democrat left when they don’t get their way. But in reality, the Constitution is fine and the Supreme Court, thankfully, is protecting it with its constitutionalist-minded majority. You’d think, based on this Times propaganda, that presidents have no constitutional authority whatsoever, especially if they’re named Trump.
The thing is, “a slap in the face to the district courts” is not only mandated here, but the country and the Constitution would be far better off if they got “a swift kick in the ass” as well.
In the National Guard cases, there is absolutely no legal basis for blocking the president from federalizing or deploying the Guard as he sees fit. The Constitution is crystal clear on that point. Yet activist judges keep inserting themselves where they have no jurisdiction — meddling in immigration cases that belong before immigration courts, dictating contract terms that Congress already designated to a separate judicial system, and even ordering the reinstatement of fired personnel without any legal authority to do so.
This isn’t judicial oversight — it’s judicial overreach. These judges are rewriting the rules to fit their politics, not the law. And it’s exactly this kind of reckless behavior that creates what’s now being called a “judicial crisis.”
The tactics used to prevent Trump from fully utilizing his Article II powers are now being applied to obstruct the Supreme Court’s decisions. This led Justice Neil Gorsuch to note, “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” when dealing with one particular case of obstruction.
Right now, the only real mechanism to hold rogue judges accountable is impeachment — an extraordinarily high bar that almost never gets used. And that’s the problem. It gives lower court judges virtually unchecked power to issue outrageous, politically driven rulings and then insist they be obeyed until the Supreme Court eventually steps in, sometimes months later.
Without a practical system to rein in this kind of judicial misconduct, things will only spiral further out of control. We’re already heading toward a system that looks less like a constitutional republic and more like a banana republic — ruled by unaccountable judges with lifetime appointments and zero oversight.
