Supreme Court finally begins to rein in district courts. Plus, Dems losing pride.
By Gary Abernathy
Supreme Court makes it clear: ‘Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch.’
In severely limiting the power of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified what most Americans know by common sense was true.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed it up nicely: “Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch.”
Her fuller explanation of the court’s ruling is worth repeating: “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
And her zinger directed at fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is worth repeating too: “(Jackson) might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions. …We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
The ruling came in response to the Trump administration’s effort to end what is known as birthright citizenship. While the court did not rule precisely on that issue, it took the opportunity to make crystal clear that the weaponization of district courts for political purposes is not appropriate. Trump critics have been rushing to hand-picked district courts to request nationwide injunctions in order to accomplish what they have not been able to achieve legislatively. Too often the courts have played along, issuing “nationwide” orders to pause or stop Trump’s various actions.
In a 6-3 decision, the court made it clear: “Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch.”
Too many federal district judges seem to consider themselves a higher authority than the president of the United States on determining executive branch decisions. But we have three separate but equal branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial. One is not greater than the other. When it comes to their duties, the only job of the judicial branch, when faced with a question about the other branches, is to determine whether an action is constitutional or unconstitutional.
The courts’ job is not to consider the impact of a decision based on whether it is fair, or morally right or wrong, or whether it will help or hurt people or institutions. Those are all political questions for elected officials to answer or address. Judges don’t need to — and aren’t supposed to — concern themselves with the political outcomes of their rulings. Their only concern should be whether actions are constitutional or violate duly enacted laws.
And when it comes to actions of the president, the Supreme Court has now clarified that district court decisions should relate only to the parties involved in any given filing and should be applied only to the district over which the court has been given authority. Only the Supreme Court has nationwide authority which, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized in a concurring opinion, it will continue to exercise.
The weaponization of our courts has reached unprecedented proportions as Democrats and other Trump critics file petitions for injunctions at record rates.
As Fox News recently reported, “Trump’s first administration faced 64 injunctions out of the total 127 nationwide injunctions issued since 1963, Fox News Digital previously reported. There were 32 injunctions issued against the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations collectively since 2001, meaning the first Trump administration was on the receiving end of double the amount of nationwide injunctions than his two predecessors and successor combined, according to an April 2024 edition of the Harvard Law Review.”
So far this year alone, in about six months, the Trump administration has faced 40 nationwide injunctions.
Hopefully, the high court’s ruling will severely curtail this abuse of the judicial system to achieve political outcomes.
Democrats’ growing lack of national pride is telling
A new Gallup study asked a question about the level of patriotism Americans currently feel, with choices like “extremely,” “very” etc.
The result? Among Republicans, 92% feel extremely or very proud to be an American. Among independents, 53% feel that way. Democrats? Only 36% of Democrats feel extremely or very patriotic.
Here’s what’s telling: Democrats over the years have an extreme swing in their level of pride in being Americans depending on whether the president is of their party or not. But Republicans, while experiencing a slight dip if a Democrat is in the White House, historically maintain a consistently high level of American pride.
As Gallup noted, “Republicans' level of national pride has been much steadier, typically registering above 90%, including 92% this year, up from 85% in 2024. The only years in which fewer than nine in 10 Republicans were proud were 2016 and 2020 through 2024. All but 2020 were when a Democratic president was in office.”
Somewhere along the way, the left deemed patriotism to be a dirty word. And yet, they complain that the American flag has been “co-opted” by the right. Indeed, we’ve reached a point where seeing an American flag flying in front of a home or from a front porch probably indicates that a conservative Republican lives there.
That’s sad. The truth is, no one co-opted the flag. People on the right simply never lost their pride in flying it or displaying it on lapel pins, etc. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there was a controversy over reporters wearing flag lapel pins. Fox News reporters typically wore them. CNN reporters typically did not, some claiming that it was too biased or unprofessional. It was a sad day when reporters who may have wanted to show their pride in being Americans were discouraged from doing so by their bosses.
There’s nothing more harmful to the cause of illegal immigrants than the recent protests where the flags of Mexico and other nations are being flown rather than American flags. It only creates more ill will across most of the country toward the protesters.
But the survey also reveals a problem with the constituency that increasingly comprises today’s Democratic Party. The party seems to attract those who think the United States is inherently evil, those who embrace all the principles of “woke” culture which they think the U.S. violates, those who consider the U.S. an imperialistic nation imposing its will on “victim” nations.
Today’s Democrats seem largely to be those who buy into the notion that America has been wrong from the beginning and remains guilty of every historic sin that the radical left lays at its feet. And they particularly resent the Americans who voted to return Donald Trump to the White House, which further fuels their anger.
Nevertheless, it’s important to note that while most Democrats don’t feel a strong sense of national pride, 36% still do, even with Trump president. Those comprising the 36% of Democrats who are extremely or very proud of their country likely feel out of step with their national party leaders and the direction of the party as a whole. They are those who, sooner or later, like Ronald Reagan before them, will likely decide that the Democratic Party has left them. They’ll join the GOP or at least become independents.
Historically in modern times, Democrats have held the edge in voter identification. But since 2022, Republicans have taken the lead, according to Gallup.
“Americans’ political party preferences remained closely divided in 2024, with the Republican Party having a slight edge for the third consecutive year,” Gallup reported in January. “Overall, 46% of Americans identified as Republicans or independents who leaned toward the Republican Party, compared with 45% who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. Prior to 2022, Republicans only had a slight edge once before, in 1991.”
So while it’s close between Republicans and Democrats based on self-identification and leaners (more important than actual registration) the fact that Republicans are tied or in the lead represents a significant shift.
With congressional representatives who identify as “democratic socialists,” along with a new Democrat mayoral nominee in New York who proudly claims that label and has advocated to defund the police, as well as a growing number of other “out there” candidates and officials, just how far the party can go before it attracts nothing but those who reflexively dislike America will be a test of its long-term viability. There is much reason to suspect it will continue to get worse.
Booming gas exports could help pay down the debt
In may latest column for The Empowerment Alliance, I point out that booming natural gas exports and other policy changes by the Trump administration could help pay down our national debt.
I write:
While the resurgence of reliable energy is a boon for domestic consumers, many of the rejuvenated natural gas projects involve expanding the export market, which can strengthen our alliances around the world by making the U.S. their chief energy supplier.
But ramping up U.S. gas exports presents another opportunity – leveraging those exports in such a way that the additional revenue helps pay down our national debt.
The national debt – the amount of money the government has borrowed to cover expenses – currently stands at more than $37 trillion, or more than $106,000 owed by every person in America. The math is simple – the U.S. needs to spend less or increase revenue. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are averse to doing the former, so finding ways to do the latter is more realistic.
I also note that taking advantage of the value of so-called public lands could also generate revenue.
Reports indicate that the Trump administration has embraced the view of many state officials that “too much of the land in their states is controlled by officials in Washington, D.C., leaving it off-limits for development and curtailing its economic value,” as Stateline reported. “Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has repeatedly called federal lands America’s ‘balance sheet,’ describing them as untapped assets worth trillions of dollars.”
For decades, our growing national debt has been a focal point of concern, an increasing burden on average Americans, and campaign fodder for political parties to weaponize against each other. If we want to get serious about shrinking the debt, unleashing America’s energy sector is one of the most effective tools we have to generate new streams of revenue from both home and abroad.
You can read it in its entirety here.
Random thoughts on this and that …
Power to the parties? The Supreme Court has agreed to review a case that could undo the contribution limits to the major parties. It would be great if the limits were overturned. Over the years, laws that limit contributions to the Republican and Democratic parties have accomplished nothing but driving contributions into “dark money” outlets and super PACs that have less accountability than the parties. The two major parties are the most transparent entities, for those worried about accountability. That’s where donors should be allowed to freely contribute.
Anti-American reporting. It’s nothing short of unpatriotic for outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN to attempt to downplay the effectiveness of the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. Journalism has been abandoned. Even with a rudimentary understanding of the effectiveness of the bombs that were dropped, there is simply no objective analysis that could determine that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not set back by years. And yet, the Times and the Post both rushed out with anonymously leaked “reports” containing the flimsiest details as an excuse to run blaring, lead-story headlines declaring that the sites weren’t that badly damaged. There is no other word for it than shameful.
Harris supporters were wrong. Ever since the 2024 election, Democrats have argued that low voter turnout is in large part to blame for Donald Trump’s win over Kamala Harris. When the New York Times disagrees, you know how wrong that idea really is. As a Times subhead put it in a recent story, “New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.” Read it here.
‘MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal’ — for yourself or for that friend or loved one who can’t fathom Trump
“MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal — And Other Shocking Notions” is a great addition to the library of MAGA Trump supporters, or the perfect gift for non-MAGA friends and loved ones to help them make sense of the 2024 election results. It’s available on Amazon. Buy it here.
The book (actually much thicker than the illustrations above indicate — the hardcover and paperback are each 453 pages) is a compilation of many of the nearly 200 columns I wrote for the Washington Post from 2017 to 2023 (and a handful of columns I wrote about Trump for The (Hillsboro) Times-Gazette from 2015 to 2017). The columns cover a variety of topics, but they particularly focus on Trump’s rise to political prominence and help explain his appeal.
Here’s a link to a website dedicated to the book.
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you!