A conservative military watchdog argues that activist courts are breaking through constitutional guardrails with increasing frequency to encroach on powers of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government.
As reported by OneNewsNow, the Trump administration last week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a "fast track" ruling on the Pentagon's policy of restricting military service by transgender people. The request came in the wake of a district judge's edict preventing President Donald Trump from changing the rules regarding transgender military service that were put in place by the Obama administration several months before leaving office.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says this recent pattern of activist judges applying bias instead of the law has serious consequences – and not just for Trump.
"The attorney general, Jeff Sessions, raised the alarm about this problem of what he called 'judicial encroachment' – judges encroaching on the authority of the president," she explains to OneNewsNow. "And it should be a non-partisan thing because any president in the future should not have to put up with district judges making decisions and reversing policy, especially on matters that affect national security."
In a recent column, Donnelly points out that Sessions noted in the first 175 years of the republic, not a single federal judge issued a national injunction. Since 2017, however, 27 district courts have issued injunctions shutting down presidential directives.
"To deny the problem exists or to claim that judges don't come at this in different ways depending on what their philosophy is – well, that's just not realistic. It's not a real-world situation," she laments.
Congress is considering legislation to fix it. In the meantime, Donnelly suggests the Supreme Court should seize opportunities to restore the constitutional order.