Here we are, a little over 100 days into the second Trump presidential administration, and there are two words that resonate. Those words are injunctions and immunity. There is no refuting that the entire mantra of the progressive socialist left, aka the Democrat party, is to reject anything emanating from the Trump administration. Heck, they are even now speaking against lowering prescription drug prices.

We have often addressed the three branches of rule employed by these leftists: academia, the media, and the courts. We can clearly see how their third branch of rule is being utilized to bring about a state of inertia for President Trump. I think it is high time there is a resolution on the scope and power of lower district court jurists. There are some 680 of these unelected bureaucrats who are appointed to lifelong positions. A review of whether this power can corrupt absolutely and result in judicial activism is worth examination. A district court judge has a defined area of jurisdiction, yet we are seeing the abuse of “court shopping” by the left as a political tactic to stymie the executive powers vested in the President of the United States by the Constitution.

Is it constitutional that these district jurists, who should be ruling on matters in their jurisdictions, have the enumerated power to constrain national policy?

I found it interesting to listen to the audio of the recent SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship, talking about lower court injunctions, during which Justice Elena Kagan had to wiggle herself out of a self-inflicted position. It was Kagan who once spoke out against “court shopping” and using lower courts to file injunctions affecting national policy. She, however, decided that the birthright citizenship case was different. How so? Is not immigration policy a national issue? Matter of fact, issues of immigration and naturalization are enumerated to the legislative branch. But the executive branch is responsible for the implementation and execution of our laws in reference to immigration and naturalization. Based upon common sense, I do find it quite perplexing that our Nation would reward citizenship to children born to parents who have broken our laws. Children of U.S. military members, when born overseas, are not granted automatic citizenship in that country where they were born, and our servicemen and women are in those foreign countries legally.

Not too long ago, I wrote a piece titled An American Black Man’s Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If we are now heading down the path of individuals pursuing court shopping based upon their ideological agenda to find a willing unelected jurist to derail national policy, then shall we interpret that to mean that these lower court district jurists are now in charge of national policy and the executive branch? Will future Presidents have to ask for a “Mother may I” from judges in order to perform and execute their enumerated constitutional duties? Well, perhaps just non-leftist presidents will have that challenge. Silly me, I thought that the court that ruled on matters of national policy, according to Marbury v Madison, was the judicial review of the US Supreme Court. I can hear so-called legal scholars counseling me about the SCOTUS hearing cases from lower courts. Again, I go back to my assertion of creating national policy inertia. No, that is not checks and balances; that is ideological judicial activism.

That leads me to ponder the other word floating about in America… immunity.

Are we to now believe that judges are so far above the law that they can break the law and claim immunity? We have them creating injunctions on policies they do not like. But, look at the case of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, and the angst of the left. Judge Dugan broke the law and decided to set free a criminal illegal immigrant out of her own court. Last week, she entered a “not guilty” plea, which forces me to say, “C’mon, man.” However, that is not the most insulting of her responses; her declaration that she has judicial immunity is mind-boggling. A judge takes an oath to make decisions based upon the law and the interpretation of it, not their personal agenda. Judge Dugan decided that a criminal illegal immigrant should go free, not based upon any misgiving of justice, but just because she felt so. Basically, Judge Dugan issued an injunction against a proceeding against someone who had violated our laws and committed acts of violence. She aided and abetted a single military age male who was illegally in our country. How can she, and the delusional leftists, believe that she should not be held accountable for her actions?

Well, I guess it is the same rationale being used by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to issue threats in order to protect members of his caucus who physically assaulted law enforcement agents. I guess that for the left, their resistance when it comes to President Trump and policies they do not like, albeit constitutional, gives them immunity. Burn down a police precinct; you get immunity. Firebomb car dealerships, and you get immunity. Undermine the sovereignty of the United States and allow tens of millions of illegals entry, and you get immunity.

Leftist Marxists have evolved into a group of deranged violence-oriented thugs, similar to Hitler’s Brown Shirts, who believe their ideology gives them immunity and grants them the right to injunctions and legal insurrection. This is all because of two other words that begin with the letter “I’…ideas and impediment.

Today’s Democrat party, a coalition of socialists, Islamic jihadists, and Marxists, is bereft of ideas. Their only recourse is to be an impediment to the success of our Nation. And they will continue to use legal insurrection, injunctions, and cries of immunity, disrespectful insolence to incite more threats, intimidation, coercion, and violence. It is time we, as true American Patriots, meet them eye to eye and defend the ultimate “I” word that defines our Republic.

Independence.

Steadfast and Loyal.