Who Judges The Judges?

Dealing with judicial activism is an urgent requirement of restoring sane and accountable governance.

Let us start by saying that the US Constitution is very clear on the role of judges. A judge is not there to assume the powers of the executive. The US system is designed with a separation of the powers which is there to prevent tyranny and arbitrary and unaccountable rule.

Separation of powers is designed to prevent a Presidential tyranny. But it’s also designed to prevent a judicial tyranny, or an administrative or a bureaucratic tyranny. It exists so that nobody can be in the position of making up the rules as they go along and that nobody is drafting the law, enforcing the law, judging the law all at the same time.

The President is limited by Congress and Senate and the government, the elected administration as a whole together with the powers of the Presidency, are limited by the law only insofar as their actions break the Constitution or egregiously transgress EXISTING laws. Given the constitutional crisis implications, any judicial judgement on executive actions has to very clearly have the support of existing law and precedent, has to be in response to clear Constitutional violations by the executive branch, and has to be conducted in an obviously objective, non partisan manner solely concerned with the enforcement of the Constitution.

Before we talk about recent events, we should know what an honest judiciary look like and what an honest judiciary does. Here are the key features of honest and legal judicial behaviour:

1. An honest judge recognises the seperation of powers and does not use his role to assume executive power or to halt legal executive actions.

2. An honest judge is not a political activist and does not use his position to advance a particular ideology or a specific political party or programme.

3. An honest judge does not work in collusion with any other party involved in a legal dispute and is not working towards an outcome he has agreed with one side of a dispute or that he personally wishes to occur.

4. An honest judge agrees to equality before the law providing the same quality of judgement and the same objectivity in all cases before him.

5. An honest judge sets aside all personal prejudices, feelings, emotions, political loyalties and extraneous and subjective attitudes towards any party in a matter he is ruling on.

6. If he is unable to set aside his personal animosities and political desires in a given case, an honest judge recuses himself from that case.

7. Similarly, an honest judge declares any and all financial or personal conflicts of interest, and recuses himself if these render him unable to offer an impartial judgement or even if these present only the appearance of him being incapable of doing so.

8. An honest judge confines his rulings to those which are themselves clearly within the law and which are consistent with the Constitution, the separation of powers and existing legal precedents.

9. An honest judge respects the Constitutional and legal rights of all parties in a dispute, and does not set aside or ignore these rights selectively at any stage of his work.

10. An honest judge will wish to hear all relevant evidence and expert testimony, and will not deny a defendant the right to representation by his lawyers being present or by expert witness testimony being heard at any appropriate stage of the legal proceedings he is presiding over.

Once we understand what honest judicial behaviour looks like, we also understand just how much modern activist judges depart from it, both in the US and in other western nations.

Modern activist judges are not responsibly limiting their own behaviour and rulings to what is both honest and legal. They are in fact activists engaged in the professional distortion of the law to achieve pre-determined results.

During the lawfare conducted under the Biden administration we saw activist Democrat judges like Judge Engoron or Judge Merchan or Judge Chutkan breaking every one of the points of honest judicial behaviour I have outlined above.

These judges had a set outcome in mind at the start of legal proceedings. They wanted a specific verdict, based on their personal political loyalties and prejudices. They then twisted the law every way they could to try to achieve that predetermined result.

They allowed purely political purely partisan cases to proceed. They allowed totally novel interpretations of existing laws and the distortion of existing laws to fit entirely novel uses. They colluded with prosecutors to try to ensure a prosecutorial victory. They allowed the same alleged crime to be stretched out to a stacked series of charges which effectively meant that the same act was being treated as hundreds of separate crimes in order to maximise potential punishments. They allowed prosecutorial misconduct including concealing of evidence and lying in court.

They denied defendants the right to call expert witnesses. They allowed prosecutors to present false and misleading evidence. They expressed personal emotions of distaste and dislike proving that their rulings wee not objective and just, doing so not only prior to the cases they were hearing, but even during them.

They refused to recuse themselves despite personal financial ties to the political enemies of defendants, and despite their own family members being paid by those political enemies. They personally or their families had made political donations to the people bringing cases they then heard, and against the people they were then judging.

And they denied the basic rights of defendants they politically opposed and did not like. They allowed statutes of limitations to be broken. They put unconstitutionally selective and pejorative bans on the free speech of defendants, barring them from publicly denying false claims and from publicly defending themselves. While doing that, they allowed prosecutors to leak information to aligned media sources and to express aspects of the cases that the defendants were not allowed to mention.

What we are seeing now, of course, is Lawfare 2.0. A whole series of Democrat judges now step forward, with their colleagues prior efforts having failed to imprison Trump and having failed to ensure a Democrat electoral victory, to follow the example made by their fellow activist judges during the Biden administration. Today, we add the names of a new series of activist Democrat judges to the roll-call of shame already established by the likes of Merchan and Engoron. These are:

1. District Judge John D.Bates, who has ordered that CDC and FDA websites be restored to old settings which included DEI and LGBTQ+ partisan political propaganda. By this ruling, Bates assumes to himself the executive power to decide all federal website content, and to directly contradict a Presidential Executive Order.

2. Boston based Judge George O’Toole has blocked the buyout offer deadline given to all federal employees, assuming to himself the executive power to decide whether or not the President and his administration can offer redundancy terms to federal employees who do not wish to follow their employers legal instructions. This ruling of course contrasts strongly with judicial silence when thousands of federal employees were sacked for refusing mandatory medical experiments during the COVID pandemic.

3. Judge John McConnell Jnr has ordered the Trump administration to “immediately restore frozen funding” to federal institutions like Dr Fauci’s NIH. Again, the judge assumes the executive power of determining where federal funding and US tax dollars go, demanding permanent disbursement of funds to the usual recipients regardless of detected waste, fraud and corruption, regardless of audit results, and regardless of the fact that elected representatives are supposed to control the purse strings, not unelected judges.

4. Trump’s Executive Order regarding birth citizenship has been judicially blocked three times already, the latest being an order by District Judge Joseph LaPlante. Again, immigration status and policy is apparently to be decided by the whim of Democrat judges with a personal and subjective love of open borders and automatic US citizenship to almost anyone, rather than by the executive elected by 74 million Americans on a specific platform to tackle these issues.

5. US District Judge Paul Engelmeyer barred all Trump political appointees from accessing Treasury Department accounts, a move which not only sought to prevent DOGE auditing of those accounts but which also immediately rendered new Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant unable to do his job and which seems to arbitrarily confer control of the Treasury Department to Judge Engelmeyer himself.

6. Judge John Coughenor in Seattle also ruled against Trump’s birthright citizenship Executive Order, again deciding that he and his fellow Democrat judges determine US immigration rules rather than the elected government doing so.

7. A THIRD Judge, Deborah L.Boardman of Maryland, also ordered a block on the birthright citizenship E.O, illustrating that mass immigration regardless of US election results is one of the key concerns of the judicial Democrat cabal seeking to oppose Trump’s policy platform.

8. Washington based D.C. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an 81 year old Clinton appointee who has mocked Christian abortion opponents while sentencing them to prison for silent prayer and who previously blocked a Trump First Term Executive Order on transgenders serving in the military, added another DOGE restricting ruling barring all but two DOGE employees from accessing the data needed to conduct an audit.

9. Fellow D.C. Judge and transgender activist Royce C. Lamberth has ordered a halt to Trump’s Executive Order on transgender prison policy, which means that if obeyed the placement of trans prisoners with penises in female prisons will continue.

10. District Judge Loren L. Alikhan issued a broad ruling blocking the Trump freeze on funding to federal agencies and NGOs that are contravening other executive orders and policy instructions. Again, the judge assumes the executive power to determine where tax dollars are spent and to possess greater authority than the President, the elected government or Congress in determining where funds are allocated.

As ever, the mainstream media depiction of the above judicial orders is almost the exact inversion of the truth. Mainstream media portray these rulings as defences against Presidential tyranny. What these orders truly represent is an attempt by the forces of waste and corruption to protect the vast system of fraud and propaganda and self enrichment they have built on top of the legitimate functions of the State.

Judicial tyranny is the real issue here. Because if a handful of Democrat judges can block national policy decisions that actually followed perfectly legal steps, then you have no electoral system at all, only a permanent system of corruption no incoming government is allowed to reverse.

DOGE has exposed huge amounts of misappropriation of funds and corrupt spending which no American citizen was given an option of voting for or against. Therefore the corrupt system wants to block DOGE from doing audits and revealing this information to the public. Funding with one declared purpose was used for other purposes, which is fraud. Funding of supposed good causes was used for regime change and interference in the internal politics of other nations, which is CIA malfeasance. Funding was directed to NGOs and institutions set up by and staffed by Democrats and their friends and families, which is a system of corrupt patronage and nepotism at public expense. This funding parasitically built networks of power, graft and bribery which thrived on the mismanagement of funds and the diversion of funds in ways that are properly understood as theft.

USAID was a CIA front enabling the CIA to secretly meddle, disastrously, in other nations, often resulting in ruinous conflicts with hundreds of thousands of deaths and reversals, rather than extensions, of US influence and reputation. Funding regime change while calling it humanitarian assistance doesn’t endear you to the rest of the world.

USAID was also a vast propaganda machine, paying thousands of journalists and media outlets to speak with the same voice while posing as an independent and free press. This propaganda relentlessly backed Democrat and Globalist values and assumptions, while censoring, suppressing and concealing other political viewpoints. USAID was essentially part of a censorship and propaganda network paid for by taxpayers with opposed views. People were being forced to pay for propaganda they didn’t agree with. This was done both at home and abroad.

The waste, corruption, propaganda, graft and self enrichment extends, though, far beyond USAID. There are 50,000 NGOs supported by it. 50 billion of fraud a year is a fraction of the amounts being stolen, which is why Trump and Musk want to extend the DOGE audit elsewhere and why payment freezes are needed.

The executive branch was given the electoral mandate to do this. This is what they campaigned on. The ideology they endorse, unlike the ideology the previous administration spread through everything, won an honest electoral victory with the electoral college victory, the popular vote victory, every Swing State being won, and with the Congress and Senate also being won. No President has been so clear on what he wanted to do, and no President in recent memory has had such a clear mandate to do it either. DOGE was spoken about during the campaign. Musk campaigned alongside Trump. Key appointments were known about during the campaign. 70% of Americans in polling say that Trump is delivering exactly what he said he would.

The judicial branch has no right to seize the powers of the executive branch or to halt policy choices. They don’t determine website content on federal websites. They don’t decide that a Treasury Secretary can’t look at Treasury accounts. They don’t have any legal right themselves to bar an elected government undertaking its normal duties of executive decision making. They don’t have legal standing themselves to try to block an entire policy platform.

Democrats have resorted to judicial activism precisely because the things they want and the control of spending they depend on were rejected by the voting public. These judicial activists want to force the 2nd Trump administration to not reveal the extent of corruption and waste, they want to conceal that corruption and waste from the public, but are already too late on that. The public know. Thanks to DOGE.

But more than that they want to rule, now, via their handpicked group of fanatical judges. They want the judiciary to block any Trump policy they don’t like. They want the judiciary to determine executive policy. They want the judiciary to prevent the measures that are needed to end the waste and corruption. Of course they do. They have built a permanent shadow government that employs all of them and that pays for their elevated lifestyles. They are on the payroll and the missing money goes to them, their families and their friends. They got to enjoy all this regardless of who won prior elections because of course there are Republicans on the take, for far more than their official salary and their actual duties, too.

The activist judges are activist judges both by ideology and by being crooks who are part of the financial rape of the US taxpayer.

So what does one do in response? What do you do when the judiciary are trying to force an honest administration to keep funding dishonest waste, fraud and patronage? What do you do with rogue judges who serve more like the consigliere’s of a Mafia family than as the objective, impartial custodians of a law that applies equally and justly to all?

The options are multiple. These judges have only the power that the executive branch is prepared to concede to them. The judge has made his ruling, now let him enforce it, as Andrew Jackson said. There is plenty of precedent of Presidents ignoring the Supreme Court, let alone lesser district courts. Biden totally ignored the Supreme Court on student loans. If a ruling itself breaks the Constitution, the law and the separation of powers, it SHOULD be ignored. Biden had far less justification to ignore rulings than Trump has. No Republican judge assumed that their party could continue to determine executive policy and funding decisions after losing an election, or that they could try to block a whole policy platform. These are forms of ‘resistance’ unique to a Globalist Marxist version of what the law is.

Conservatives, patriots, ordinary people, view the law as a thing which exists to protect the citizen from the State. Globalists and Marxists view the law as a thing which exists to protect the State from the citizens. We assume that the law is intended to prevent waste, fraud, mismanagement, theft and crime. They assume that the law exists to allow waste, fraud, mismanagement, theft and crime. We see the law as a shield of last resort when a crime has already occurred, a thing that answers an existing crime with a balancing act of justice. They see the law as a tool to be deployed, another weapon to wield in defence of the crimes they have already committed and a means of threatening and defeating those who want real justice restored.

Some say that the smart move now is to let these rulings continue to expose just how much every Democrat position is really about protecting the vast criminal enterprise, the network of corruption and self enrichment, they have built up like a cancer through the organs of the State. The Democrat offer to the voters now is fully exposed as ‘we will take your money and spend it on whatever we want, no matter how idiotic, steal lots of it in the process, and then screech that revealing this is Nazism’. Those who say do not respond aggressively to lawfare 2.0, to the judicial theft of executive power, believe that the Supreme Court will be forced to halt these actions by the excesses of the Democrat judges and by the clear Constitutional infringements their rulings enact. The Supreme Court will shut down these lesser rulings and also define in law, without ambiguity, the priority of the President, Congress, and the serving administration in determining policy and spending.

We will get a Supreme Court ruling which makes it clear that partisan warfare on Executive Orders or partisan refusal of executive authority is not legal. A President can enable audits. A President can decide that LGBTQ propaganda be removed. Just as a President can create USAID by executive order, so too should he be able to close it, or simply insist that it do only that which it was originally created to do. A President cannot be bound to sit passively accepting billions of dollars of fraud from the public purse, with his hands tied by judges who are beneficiaries of the fraud. Judicial activism renders elections pointless and tyranny permanent, and it’s possible that the Supreme Court will see that.

But it’s not certain that they will. They refused to intervene when 2020 was stolen, ironically partly out of a legitimate fear of straying into executive territory. They did not want an election to be decided by judges. Now, though, they face Democrat judges refusing to accept an electoral result. If these rulings stand, Democrat judges acting on partisan grounds control the US more than the President does. Will the Supreme Court act against judicial tyranny, when it trembled to act lest it be accused of the same?