Democrats are anything but democratic.
In the past, their idea of governance was overreach and abuse of power carried through unelected bureaucrats, intimidation attempts by radicalized mobs disguised as protesters, and a weaponized judicial system, especially rogue judges, to impose their will on the public.
As a famous quote often attributed to Mark Twain goes, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
Once again, the Democratic Party, when thwarted at the ballot box, has turned to judges to impose its will on the public. As many as 10 federal judges have recently ruled against President Donald Trump‘s proposed budget cuts, spending freezes, transgender policies, and push to end birthright citizenship, as well as access to data by Trump-appointed auditors trying to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.
This usurpation of the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government by the judicial branch, ideologically aligned with Democrats, should be considered dangerous, regardless of one’s political affiliation. It is an abuse of authority that the Founding Fathers recognized as a threat to the republic.
Ironically, it was Elbridge Gerry — after whom the word “gerrymandering” was created and who was a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 — who warned about judicial imposition. He voiced his concern about the “sophistry of the judges.” Authors of the Federalist Papers echoed similar sentiments in their writings. The ideas and words of those from the 18th century are applicable in 2025.
For example, in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton cautioned that judges might exercise their will instead of their judgment in interpreting laws. He also stressed the importance of judges remaining impartial, noting that the “independent spirit in the judges” was paramount to “a faithful performance of so arduous a duty.”
Furthermore, consider Federalist 81, in which Hamilton discussed the fears and concerns over judicial activism. Hamilton warned that if judges prioritized passion and politics over the law and construed it, then this would enable the judiciary to develop its own rules. “The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mold them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body,” Hamilton argued.
Hamilton’s words proved prescient.
Activist courts have become more frequent as judges at the state and federal levels expropriate power assigned to the other two branches of government. Federal judges attempted to usurp executive branch authority in terrorist detainee cases during the Bush administration. They did so again during the first Trump administration when judges opposed Trump’s lawful orders to restrict people coming to the United States from nations where terrorists are active. In each case, judges interceded in nonjusticiable affairs, as was predicted in Federalist 78.
Yet, this abuse can be traced back even further. One egregious example was during the last years of the Reagan administration.
For example, in 1987, District Judge Russell Clark, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, ordered a 150% increase in property taxes and a 1.5% income tax to fund a desegregation plan for schools in Kansas City, Missouri. Clark decreed that Missouri was to pay the balance.
Since when did the Constitution authorize a judge to order a tax increase?
In other instances, judges have overreached their authority in the criminal justice system, issuing rulings related to incarcerated prisoners. For example, in some cities, such activist judges ordered criminals to be released from confinement for no reason other than jails and prisons were, in their opinion, “overcrowded.”
Still, other judges have reversed referenda. Judge Thelton Henderson issued an injunction against California’s Proposition 209, which was aimed at dismantling state affirmative-action programs based on sex or race. Californians voted on Proposition 209 in 1996. However, Henderson, also a Carter appointee, thought his opinions were superior to those of the electorate.
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel subsequently overturned Henderson’s ruling. In his majority opinion, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote, “A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
O’Scannlain’s sentiments exemplify how the judicial branch should work. He provided an honest and intelligent explanation to which all judges should adhere. Unfortunately, they don’t. If the country allows rogue, activist judges to continue their abuse of power and judicial overreach without any accountability, then we will no longer be a constitutional republic but instead a judiciocracy.
It would behoove people of all political parties and ideologies to reject such advances. Moreover, people all along the ideological continuum must remember that the government is “of the people, by the people, for the people” — and not ruled by judges.