Any of 677 federal district judges can stop the federal government in its tracks!  Pick a judge any judge - it is called shopping for a judge.  If you don't like what the federal government is doing, or you didn't vote for the President, then shop for a sympathetic judge and have an injunction issued - it is that easy.  <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Is this any way to run a country?</span><img class="size-full wp-image-6764 alignright" src="" alt="th-1" width="300" height="220" />

“But wait”, you say! Not so fast.  The judiciary is the equal of the executive and congressional branches – doesn’t the Constitution provide for this equality?  Why no, it doesn’t!  Surprise!

The judiciary according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1, is the Supreme Court which is the third and equal branch to the executive and congressional branches.   Federal district and appellate judges serve the inferior courts established by Congress.

The federal district and the appeals courts, called tribunals, pursuant to the Constitution, are not equal to the congressional and the executive branches.  Only the Supreme Court is equal.

Article I, Section 8: “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court…” and Article III, Section 1: ” The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…”

So we should ask, why is it that any one of 677 federal district judges can stop the federal government in its tracks?  They are not elected, and they do serve for life, but most importantly, they are not equal to the executive or congressional branches, based on the Constitution.

supreme court

The cartoon may say judicial, but it is referring to the Supreme Court, only.


However, when one of 677 federal judges decides to become political and stop or alter the workings of anyone of the two or even three equal branches that make up the federal government, they do so with absolutely no repercussions.  There is no downside to being a political activist.   What other countries would have 677 unelected, unchecked overseers of the elected President, each with a different political bent – some straight shooters and others who want to and will actively champion political causes contrary to a current administration.

Can we fix this?  Most certainly!  The Congress established the “inferior” courts pursuant to the Constitution and the Congress did and does make rules for these inferior courts.  How about a rule that any challenge to federal government actions from any of the three branches SHALL NOT be handled by the inferior courts.  This leaves the Supreme Court in the position of having to handle the challenge, per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution – …Controversies to which the United States shall be a party…

Alternatively, Congress can designate only one federal district court to hear these cases and then refer the cases with merit to one specifically designated appeals court, then on to the Supreme Court, if it accepts the case.  Congress can then limit injunctions or any other negative federal government actions to one “designated” district/appeals court track and keep the activists from fomenting an out of control system.  A system where any one of 677 district court judges can act as an activist. Ultra care can then be made in appointing well-balanced federal district judges for that special district court.

Unhappy about the state of affairs?  Don’t just stew, tell your Congressman, that we need a change in the inferior courts or we can kiss our federal republic goodbye.   The progressive left has already seized on this chasm in our governance to create havoc and to usurp the authority of the elected president.  The ultra minority now has a way to dictate to the majority!

(Supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution, likely because it only recognized one Court when written)

Read more about our out of control judiciary:  Which branch of the federal government is the more powerful – Congressional, Executive, or Judicial?