There has been a great deal of discussion in recent days about rogue federal judges unconstitutionally inserting themselves into the administration of Executive Branch departments. Federal judge Paul Engelmayer of New York decreed that only career bureaucrats in the Treasury Department can have access to the department’s payment system, but that the boss, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (who was appointed by Donald Trump), was barred from all access. Similarly, federal judge John Bates just unconstitutionally inserted himself into the administration of several federal health agencies by reversing President Trump’s executive order that removed sex change propaganda from the heath agencies’ websites. Judge Bates demanded that the various gender and sexual lifestyle links be re-instated.

So how should the Trump administration respond? Here’s an idea:

President Trump should fire these rogue federal judges and instruct all Executive Branch employees to ignore any rulings that come from federal judges that he has fired.

Some people might argue that Trump has no constitutional authority to fire federal judges. They’d be right. But those rogue federal judges also have no constitutional authority to insert themselves into the administration of the Executive Branch departments.

By the current playbook, if a rogue judge unlawfully issues an injunction to impede or change the workings of the Executive Branch, the President must abide with the ruling. The only recourse is to appeal to an appellate judge or court to seek a reversal of the ruling, with a likely escalation of appeals and counter-reversals that will take an extended period of time.

So, if the President declares that a federal judge has been terminated of his job, shouldn’t that judge have to stand down until the appeals process plays out too? If not, why not? If the judiciary can interfere with the administration of the Executive Branch, why can’t the Executive Branch reciprocate?

Obviously, the judiciary has no constitutional reason to consent to the President firing federal judges, and it is free to ignore such a request. Likewise, the President has no obligation to acknowledge or respect a clearly unconstitutional intrusion into its affairs by the judiciary. Forcing the judiciary to refuse Executive Branch intrusion into its turf would be extremely helpful.

And clearly, the notion of the President firing federal judges is preposterous, but it is no less preposterous than what the judiciary is doing. If a federal judge ruled that the President must re-segregate the government in the manner of Woodrow Wilson’s policies, would the President have to engage in those actions until the appeals process played out? Of course not. But allowing a federal judge to demand that sex-change information be put on government websites is happening right now, and it’s just as outrageous.

In our Constitutional system of “checks and balances,” Congress has the authority to impeach judges and abolish courts, but it has proved that it won’t do so. There is no defined Executive Branch mechanism to check the judiciary, however, and unchecked power leads to abuses. We now have hundreds of federal judges who have the unchecked power to unilaterally veto any legislation, reverse any Executive Order, and implement regulatory whims.

Politely asking the judiciary to stay in its lane has been futile. There needs to be consequences or it will never stop.

It is not possible to swat away the endless injunctions and rulings from activist judges. The appeals process will consume the entire Trump presidency. That leaves the Executive Branch with two options, ignore the rulings from rogue judges, or punch back. “Firing” federal judges would force the judiciary to go on defense, and somehow explain why it can assume unconstitutional authority but the President can’t.

Of course, the usual suspects would demand that President Trump be impeached, again, if he were to announce the firing of federal judges. That’s fine, we should be having a discussion about impeaching federal officials who trample on the Constitution. There are a lot of judges that need to be impeached and removed from the bench.

I’m aware that some conservatives whom I regard very highly are confident that the Supreme Court is about to slap down all these rogue federal judges, and very soon. I certainly hope so, but I don’t expect it. For some reason, and despite a lengthy history to the contrary, these conservative legal minds cling to an idealistic belief that principles and fidelity to the Constitution will suddenly swell in the justices’ hearts and minds.

Experience tells me otherwise. In fact, Alexandria Brown stated my thoughts about this subject better than I can state them myself in this outstanding Twitter/X thread quoted below.

A warning to all my legal peeps, most notably myself, that we are ignoring the Normies' responses to the lawfare at our own peril. The Normies are sick of all of this with reason. So grab your coffee, which we all know has a solid 80% chance of being Irish, and let's get it.

We, the legal peeps, are going on about having to respect the legal process and sure, sure, it may take a bit and that's annoying but the mills of God grind slowly but fine and just you wait, Thomas is going to bench slap the national injunctions, don't you worry about it!

Meanwhile, the Normies have pesky questions such as, Alex, nationwide injunctions have been around as long as Thomas has been on the bench, including now that there's the supposedly solid 6-3 majority and yet nothing's been done yet so why should I believe it will happen now?

The Normies note minor things like you are saying I should trust the process, you mean the one where Roberts has invented an entire separate set of precedents for the Obamacare cases, and where it took 50 years to overturn Roe and Casey, you mean that process?

The Normies wonder just why it is that 77 million people voting turns out to matter less than the votes a total of at most 23 people. (Here's the math - 1 SDNY district court judge, 13 Second Circuit court judges, 9 Supremes). [I suppose to be picky you could say 2 SDNY judges.]

The Normies want to know why one single judge in one single district can put an immediate stop to a matter that sure seems to be part of what the Executive can do in the Executive branch, causing months of delays and, when that judge is wrong, nothing bad happens to the judge.

The Normies want to know why, if the claimed danger by the actions of the Executive are so immediate as to require a restraining order, those same actions aren't so immediate as to require that the Circuit court and then SCOTUS to hear it within days or weeks rather than months.

The Normies see, to pick someone at random, me, saying these cases are bait and unitary executive theory is going to be entrenched at SCOTUS and want to know what possible monkey crack I've been smoking to assume that Roberts is going to uphold unitary executive authority.

These are all absolutely fair questions. Falling back on, look, I know it's awful, however, respect for the judiciary is imperative as it has taken centuries to even claw mankind to this low level of using court orders and not kinetic responses to solve matters is a crutch.

We (I) are (am) asking people to respect a judiciary that absolutely appears to have two tiers of law. People who trespass at abortion clinics are sentenced harshly while people who firebomb a Federal courthouse have their cases dismissed or are given community service.

The Normies are done, utterly done, with lawfare and sue and settle and being told to trust the process. You mean the process that tries to avoid answering any difficult questions directly until there is no choice? That process? Sure, Jan.

The Normies have absolutely valid concerns that any of these cases will resolve in a matter that does not benefit the Left. The Normies have even more valid questions about why all of this takes so long. All of that is fair. Saying that's just how it works? Not enough. /f

[buck.throckmorton at protonmail dot com]