Staff Reports
President Trump’s second term is off to a roaring start, and not just a polite little clap but a full-on standing ovation mixed with a few whooping cheers from true conservatives. In a move that could probably ignite a “Hallelujah!” chorus from the right, Trump is unrolling a series of executive orders aimed at dismantling the notorious DEI programs in the federal government, once and for all. He’s also standing firm on the scientifically validated idea that there are two genders, promoting a more secure environment for ICE to swoop in on criminal illegal aliens, and cutting funding to schools that prefer indoctrination over education. It seems the only thing getting rattled more than Washington D.C. is the fragile egos of the left.
As the left reels from these decisive actions, they’re not bothering with rational discourse or trying to actually earn the favor of the American people. Instead, they are right on track with their familiar game plan: litigation. Losing an election? Just sue your way back into power. What a strategy! Conveniently, their best allies—those who have received the blessing of Obama—are waiting on the legal sidelines, ready to slap down nationwide injunctions to thwart Trump’s agenda like it’s a game of legal whack-a-mole. If this isn’t judicial tyranny wrapped in procedural red tape, it’s hard to know what is.
Bipartisan frustration could be an understatement, as Republicans recognize the creative license these judicial activists are taking with their authority. Instead of sitting idly by, the Republican-controlled Congress needs to catapult the fight to the next tier. They should swiftly amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) to eliminate the widespread misuse of nationwide injunctions. The American people are asking, why should a lone district judge have the power to dictate national policy? That sounds like a recipe for disaster—or an attempt to stage a coup from the judicial bench.
Back in 1938, when the FRCP was crafted, nobody thought it would turn into a playground for activist judges. Injunctions were supposed to be tailored to specific cases—not distributed like candy to anyone willing to throw a fastball at anything remotely conservative. This weaponization has given judges the audacity to shape national policy, transforming the courtroom into something resembling a soap opera with a never-ending plot twist. As Justice Clarence Thomas has aptly pointed out, this practice isn’t just suspicious; it undermines the fundamental limits structured into our judicial system.
LANDRUM: One Overlooked Legal Move Could Unlock Trump’s America First Agenda https://t.co/oUpgvbRa4D via @dailycaller Excellent Article. I agree, it is crazy that a liberal federal judge can make a ruling to stop a program for the entire nation. The Congress needs to make the…
— David Nix (@David94957Nix) February 6, 2025
Legal experts have echoed similar sentiments for years, highlighting the absurdity of giving unprecedented powers to federal judges. The notion that a judicial body could work as a permanent opposition party rather than serving justice is exactly what the Framers sought to prevent. It’s a legal disaster waiting to happen, and more frustratingly, it hasn’t even been properly addressed in Congress. The apparent solution is simple: amend Rule 65 of the FRCP, legally severing nationwide injunctions from the judicial playbook. It’s not just a plausible move; it’s also within the congressional power granted under the Rules Enabling Act.
No one’s calling for radical reforms here; just a return to common sense. The left, assuming judicial overreach was here to stay, seems to have forgotten that there is no constitutional basis for these sweeping nationwide injunctions. With Trump showing how effective real action can be, Congress would do well to draft an amendment that rescinds judicial vetoes and allows legitimate governing to take place. Winning elections should lead to governing, not endless legal battles over the whims of activist judges. Now is the time for action. The American people didn’t vote for a judicial dictatorship; they voted for bold reforms and the rule of law.
