Perhaps the biggest roadblock to Trump’s MAGA agenda has been radical, liberal judges. These men and women, appointed by previous presidents and other powers, have interfered with President Trump’s lawful authority.
But that’s all about to change.
Judges are supposed to be impartial. They have a solemn duty to uphold our laws. Decisions made by judges can decide the fate of not just one person, but millions. Judges that preside over federal issues can very well affect the lives of every last American.
We’ve seen how radical judges can harm our country. Obama-appointed judges have overstepped their bounds by attacking Trump’s lawful executive orders. They have allowed their personal, political views to violate their responsibilities.
Not only that, but certain groups within our government have been appointing judges—without the approval of the president. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution. Thankfully, the Supreme Court felt so too. Now many questionable judges are about to get their walking papers.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday expanded presidential control over pivotal jobs in federal agencies, ruling that the way the Securities and Exchange Commission selected its in-house judges to enforce investor-protection laws was improper.
In a 7-2 ruling, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that had endorsed the SEC’s in-house judge hiring practice that operated autonomously from the president.
The ruling could reverberate through the federal government, which has nearly 2,000 administrative law judges deciding matters as varied as unfair trade practices, veterans benefits and patent infringement. Such a ruling could also make it easier for some of these judges to be fired by political appointees.
Six of the justices said the appointments of the judges were unconstitutional. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with the outcome, but said it only violated federal administrative law. Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision.
The SEC-appointed judges have long been a controversy. The Commission had the power to appoint their own judges. These judges were overseeing crucial cases that affected private businesses and the investment industry. Clearly, there was a conflict of interest.
It would have been very easy for the SEC to select judges that would only vote in their favor. Or, compromised members of the Commission could have picked judges whose rulings would appease corrupt investment firms. You see the problem?
The President—who has authority to appoint federal judges—was cut out of the loop. He would play a crucial role in deciding if judges should stand or not. Instead, the SEC had free rein. Not anymore.
This ruling can open the door for Trump to reevaluate numerous, questionable judge seats. Judges that are clearly letting their bias get in the way of their job might be in trouble. Trump can allow his cabinet to take stock of sitting judges and decide if they should, in fact, stick around.
Perhaps we’ll see another purge in Washington. Yet more of the swamp drained.