Will the Supreme Court Step In and End the Reign of Overreach by Left-Wing Activist Judges?
By The Blog Source
The latest court intervention into U.S. immigration policy came last Saturday when Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the return of deportation planes in midair. On board the plane were alleged members of the infamous Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt blasted the activist judge who was trying to stop President Trump from deporting gang members and terrorists.
While not all aircraft were impacted by the order—El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele gave some passengers a warm welcome—it does serve as a reminder of the increasing trend of district judges challenging executive authority in matters of national security.
Conservatives, according to Michael A. Fragoso of the City Journal, have become accustomed to judicial interference in immigration enforcement, but the sight of a judge attempting to stop flights already in flight elevated this overreach to unprecedented levels. "Tensions between the executive and judiciary over immigration and national security are nothing new," Fragoso said, referring to other instances of these conflicts.
Similar circumstances occurred under the George H. W. Bush administration, according to Fragoso, when a federal judge in New York frequently ruled against the detention of Haitian migrants. Then, Attorney General William Barr moved swiftly, calling for the Supreme Court to intervene and ultimately ensuring that the executive branch's power was upheld.
According to Barr, "On the high seas, the maritime judge up in New York [Sterling Johnson] kept on putting stays on us and actually enjoining the Coast Guard and the Justice Department."
Because of his adamant resistance, the Supreme Court overturned the judge's decisions, giving the president more power to address national security risks. The case also serves as a reminder of how quickly immigration-related legal issues can escalate. The potential disaster that could follow from judicial overreach was a major concern for National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft at the time. He warned that "a judge in New York cannot enjoin the United States military forces."
Barr's backup plan, which was in compliance with US law but legally dubious under international law, called for moving American ships within Haiti's territorial waters to halt the influx. This episode teaches Fragoso a crucial lesson: Bush, a conservative Republican president, was willing to take extreme measures to maintain executive authority over immigration and national security.
He contends that Chief Justice John Roberts, who was deputy to Ken Starr in the 1991 case, should recognize the need to curtail activist judges in the contemporary era. "The Supreme Court’s patience is secondary to its duty to police lower courts when they intrude on core executive power," according to him. Fragoso argues that the current Supreme Court must act forcefully, as it did during the Bush administration, to prevent lower courts from undermining the executive branch's constitutional obligations. His words, "Barr got his stay," are the same action that is required today.
To join the Diamond and Silk Monthly Supporter Program, visit http://SupportDiamondandSilk.com.
Lindell TV, VOCL, ChatDit, Rumble, TruthSocial, and Diamond and Silk Media are all excellent ways to stay connected with Diamond and Silk.
