Judicial Activism Reaches New Heights of Delusion
In yet another stunning example of “someone forgot how government works,” a federal judge has effectively decided she’s better at making laws than the actual legislature. The ruling, which reads like a rejected script for “Schoolhouse Rock,” demonstrates what happens when someone gets a lifetime appointment and decides that “checks and balances” is just a suggestion.
The judge in question issued a nationwide injunction blocking a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, apparently operating under the belief that one person in a black robe knows better than the combined wisdom of 535 elected representatives. It’s democracy in action, if by “democracy” you mean “rule by whoever went to law school and got lucky with their judicial appointments.”
Legal scholars are divided on the ruling, which is academic speak for “half think it’s brilliant and half think it’s insane, and both sides have stopped listening to each other.” The judge’s creative interpretation of congressional authority spans 147 pages of legal jargon that could be summarized as “I don’t like this law, so I’m going to find a creative way to kill it.”
What makes this particularly delicious is that both political parties have embraced judicial activism when it goes their way and screamed about “judicial overreach” when it doesn’t. It’s the most bipartisan thing in American politics: everyone agrees judges shouldn’t make law from the bench, except when they’re making the laws we want. The trend of federal judges blocking congressional legislation has skyrocketed, turning the judiciary into a sort of super-legislature that can veto anything without worrying about elections.
The ruling has predictably set off a firestorm on social media, where legal experts (and people who played Phoenix Wright once) debate the finer points of constitutional law in 280-character increments. The discourse has been enlightening in the way that a dumpster fire is technically a source of illuminationyes, there’s light, but at what cost?
Congress, for its part, seems unsure how to respond to being told they don’t actually make laws anymore. Some members are calling for impeachment, others for appeals, and a few are just sitting in the corner wondering when their job became performative. The separation of powers is looking less like three co-equal branches and more like one branch that occasionally lets the others feel important.
The Supreme Court will likely have to weigh in, which means we’ll get a 6-3 decision that everyone will claim is either a triumph of justice or the death of democracy, depending on which side wins. Because that’s how judicial review works now: it’s either the greatest thing ever or fascism, with no middle ground.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/federal-judge-dreams-shes-congress/7
SOURCE: Sarah Pappalardo (https://bohiney.com/federal-judge-dreams-shes-congress/7)
