About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Sunday, March 4, 2018

The Judiciary's Connection To The Importance Of Winning The Presidential Popular Vote

The last time the Supreme Court heard a case decided by a district court, without an appeal being decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals,  was 2004 – prior to that it was 1982 so it doesn't happen often.
Last week the Supremes announced they would not hear, out of turn without going through the appeals process, a case challenging the legality of President Trump's decision to end BO's DACA program that is scheduled to start phasing out on March 5 in accordance with Trump's executive order from last September.  For background – see referenced post below for complete details regarding how the DACA program was created & Trump's plan to phase it out.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals court to expedite the proceedings & obtain a final decision thereby wrapping up a contentious issue that has gone on too long for all concerned including the DACA recipients.
District Judges William Alsup, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, & Nicholas G. Garaufis, of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, both blocked Trump's plan to end DACA & even ordered Trump to resume accepting applications.  Judge Alsup said that his nationwide injunction was "appropriate" because "our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law & policy."
But that "strong interest" has not been great enough for Congress to act – it is Congress that is responsible for immigration laws under the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution -Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.  Congress has barely started discussing a DACA matter even though the aforementioned March 5 deadline is @ hand.  Who thinks Congress will solve the DACA problem, or any problem, without a deadline to work against?
And that "strong interest" also has not been great enough for the Supreme Court to circumvent the immediate appeals court process & render a clear decision regarding a contentious issue that obviously both the Legislative & Judicial branches want no part in solving.
But even worse both district judges ruled without following existing law – their rulings were based on an executive order written by BO in 2012 & their own personal feelings for the most part.
Judge Garaufis cited Trump's anti-immigrant tweets & public statements saying he was "sympathetic" to those who did not apply for DACA before September 5 – the date Trump's unwinding process of DACA began.  Garaufis was concerned 1) that up to 1,400 DACA recipients a day could lose their deportation protection, 2) that some could lose healthcare thereby imposing burdens not only on the immigrants themselves but on public hospitals, 3) that employers will be hurt as DACA recipients lose their jobs resulting in "staggering adverse economic impacts" that could include up to $800 million in lost tax revenue, 4) that ending DACA would also have "profound & irreversible" social costs as hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients are separated from their families, 5) with Trump's "recurring redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary" saying "it's extreme, it's recurrent, & it's vicious", & 6) with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying Sessions "seems to think that courts don't get to have their own opinions". 
What was missing with all of the above was either judge citing chapter & verse from the Constitution or any existing statute – which is what they are supposed to do.  Garaufis's above list sounds like something a lawmaker should take into account – not a judge.  When the court makes a ruling that is not based on existing law they have violated the separation of powers & have become activists that are determined & resolved to shape policy themselves if the other two branches of government will let them – which they have for decades.
In the simplest of terms a court ruling, other than one based on following clearly stated existing law, is not lawful.  A law can only can be written by Congress & signed into law by the President.
So what the Legislative & Judicial branches have let stand is two district judges in California & Brooklyn overruling the President of the United States regarding a matter that affects the entire country.  Doesn't this sound ridiculous?  Who could possibly think this is right or what our Founding Fathers fought for – to let unelected judges, including those on the Supreme Court, that no one every heard of or could identify if their life depended on it overrule our elected representatives?
The Judiciary has usurped the power of the Legislative branch & in the process bullies the President – the Judiciary has gone far afield from what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78: "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."  What we were given by our Founders as the "least in a capacity to annoy or injure" we have let turn into the actual ability & power to tyrannize the elected branches & therefore ourselves.
Well, Governor Mike Huckabee has never agreed with this judicial power grab.  Click here to hear the gov present his latest lesson of 9th grade civics that both the Members of Congress & the Judiciary know full well but are avoiding @ all costs to themselves.  In fact Mike points out that Trump is complicit & equally in violation of his oath for not simply ignoring the district judges & handing each of them a copy of the Constitution to read.  Note the Huckabee video specifically refers to travel bans but the DACA matter equally applies.
Trump is quite often seen standing before a portrait of President Andrew Jackson who is the best example of a president who ignored the Supreme Court in fulfilling his own oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States."  In short judges & the Justices of the Supreme Court are not the only ones who pledge to support the Constitution or to interpret it & Trump being a fan of Jackson knows this. 
But Trump is not in the same position as Andrew Jackson who was regarded as a popular war hero.  Jackson won 56% of the popular vote & 68% of the electoral college vote in 1828 & 56% of the popular vote & a whopping 82% of the electoral college vote in 1832.  Trump won 45.9% of the popular vote & 56% of the electoral college vote in 2016.
So we have finally found the importance of winning the presidential popular vote.  If Trump tried to change the mindset of the citizenry's erroneous understanding of the role of the Judiciary, by ignoring rulings that overstep their bounds, it would join the hateful list of fictitious grounds for his impeachment. 


  1. These District Court judges may be part of the Elite Left that hates our Constitution. one of their key strategies may be to attain a perpetual super majority of votes to further complete what BO was implementing - radical fundamental transformation of the US into A Left Socialist / Marxist dictatorship. Leaving DACA alone along with allowing all illegals to vote as the Chicago Government says it now allows is part of their strategy

    The Elite Left has been very successful in its propaganda where many independents are tolerant of their statist positions. Starting in the 60’s the Hippies were part of drivers for the Left patiently implementing strategies to control Public education, colleges, media, courts. They have been very very successful.

    What we must do:

    counter this propaganda with our own messages touting personal freedoms, free markets, free speech, etc. we must become much better! The Left has been 10 times better than us for 50 years.

    Use our Executive and DOJ to implement immigration laws on the Books. Send in ICE and the national Guard to destroy sanctuary cities. We can do this if we have the will. Change ICE rules of engagement.

    Prosecute Oakland mayor. She has no love for immigrants. She only wants their votes for a Marxist USA.

    Demand Jess Sessions resign - most useless low energy AG of my lifetime.

  2. Good morning Doug,

    I could not let this particular essay of yours go without a reply. I turned to Kevin because he has the expertise and credentials to best reply to you. He has, as you know a JD in the Law from Rutgers University. He has been handling constitutional and administrative law cases all the way back to the early 1980s when he worked in the Justice Dept. under Reagan. In addition, he also has an advanced degree in History. Please publish this as in fairness to your readers they deserve to hear both arguments.


    No offense but I could not disagree with you more. The concept of Judicial review (The Federal Courts having the Constitutional authority to determine whether the acts of a President or Congress are lawful) dates back over 200 years to Marbury v Madison. And yes, it’s true that Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling protecting Native American rights, ultimately leading to the Trail of Tears where thousands lost their lives on the forced march west of the Mississippi, Thankfully our Presidents since have abided by Court decisions. What if Eisenhower had ignored Brown v. Board of Education? Would segregated schools still be the norm? Eisenhower, a Republican by the way, did not go the route you are suggesting. Rather he sent in the National Guard to enforce the anti-segregation ruling of the Supreme Court.

    In the case of the recent rulings regarding DACA, Judges are allowed by law to take into account the factors you cite, to determine whether rule making by the executive Branch comports with the Administrative Procedure Act, or is arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful. Similar bases for rulings have been used in the past to nullify what you would deem to be “liberal “ administrative acts. President Obama’s executive actions were frequently blocked by sole Federal Judges. Ultimately these decisions you oppose may be reversed but the Supreme Court was merely following long term tradition of allowing cases to be fully adjudicated below before getting involved.

    The Judiciary is a coequal branch of the government and the results you wish to achieve may be constitutionally obtained, by amending the Constitution to bar the concept of Judicial review, something that should never and will never happen.

  3. Well, the judicial, executive and legislative branches are NOT equal. Their diverse powers include various roles essential to checks and balances. But there’s a big difference between that and equality. I came here today because I saw Doug’s letter in the Wall Street Journal, and wanted to give him an attaboy. Of course the Supreme Court has the duty to support and defend the Constitution. All federal employees do, including Members of Congress and the President. If the President concludes that a Supreme Court opinion is not in keeping with the Constitution, the President is obligated by his or her oath of office to oppose the court, not to defer to it. If a President concludes, for example, that abortion deprives persons of their lives without due process, then he or she is obligated to use every lawful power to stop abortion. I agree with Doug’s closing comment in his letter: “Please be careful not to promote ideas that will encourage or accelerate the court’s ill-gotten power that is well on its way to becoming judicial tyranny.” Actually, he may be understating the current state of affairs. The notion of judicial supremacy has become so engrained that instead of a Constitutional Republic, we now have a Judicial Oligarchy.