“Radical Scythian Judges” target Trump’s administration that legal failures are piling up: “Judges have no authority to manage the executive branch”
The new populist president opposed the judiciary as they blocked his aggressive moves for the restructuring of his country’s government and economy.
It was in Mexico, where former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador eventually went throughchangesThis demanded that every judge in his country would be elected, not appointed. Reforms and promise more than his successor causedmarketto lose confidence in the reliability of his country as a place to invest, which led to a weak currency.
It was in a series of attacks that have been launched around the world in the courts in recent years, and legal observers are now wondering if the United States can be next.
As the courts supplya series of failuresHis dramatic attempt to change the federal government without the approval of Congress, the supporters of President Donald Trump echoes some rhetoric and actions that preceded the attacks on the judiciary elsewhere.
Trump’s deputy head of headquarters, Stephen Miller, posted last week on X: “Under the precedents who have now established a radical rogue, the Hawaii district court could enjoy the movements of the hull in Iraq. Referees have no authority to manage the executive government.
“We have either democracy,” said Miller, who once led a legal group that sued to score the judges of former President Joe Biden’s initiatives, “or not.”
Trump’s supporters in Congress have launched a spectrum of imperative judges who have judged the administration. Elon Musk, billionaire Trump’s assistant whose efficiency of the Government Department ended up at the intersection of much of the litigation, regularly invited to remove judges on her website on social networks, X.
On Sunday, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Justice, Republican Chuck Grassley, reacted furiously to the Washington judge order Briefly stopped the deportation under the 18th -century war law that Trump called for hours earlier.
“Another day, another judge unilaterally deciding the policy for the whole country. This time in favor of members of foreign gangs,” Grassley wrote. “If the Supreme Court or Congress is not repaired, we move toward the constitutional crisis.”
Activists claim that this is an administration that increases the prospect of crisis.
“They don’t like what they see in the courts, and this is the placement of what could be a constitutional crisis about the independence of the judiciary,” said Heidi Beirich, founder of a global project against hatred and extremism.
‘Threats to the Constitutional Government’
Despite the rhetoric, Trump’s administration has not openly defied the court order so far, and dozens of cases filed against his actions have followed a regular legal course. His administration did not make moves to seek the removal of judges or pushes court reforms through Congress under the control of the Republicans.
Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University and a polling station expert who previously served in the Department of Civic Rights of the Ministry of Justice, said he was not a fan of Trump’s moves. But he said the administration follows legal norms by regretting decisions she doesn’t like.
“I think most of this is shining,” Levitt said, noting that the courts can close those who do not obey the commands or charge the crippled cash penalties that dual daily. “If this is an approach that the Executive Director wants to take, it will cause a fight. Not everyone will be pleased as a goalkeeper like Congress.”
Even if no moves to remove judges or sharply neglect their judgments, the rhetoric has not passed unnoticed in the judiciary. Two judges with a Republican appointment last week warned of the growing danger of targeting the judiciary.
“The threats of the judges are threats to the Constitutional Government. Everyone should take it seriously, “said Judge Richard Sullivan, who was appointed by Trump in his first term on a federal appeal in New York.
Targeting judges “Authoritarian Instinct”
In Mexico is López Obrador last year called duty. But several other populist Trump allies who did not show a tendency to leave power made their judiciary with a central target.
Hungarian Viktor OrbánHe lowered the mandatory retirement for the judges to force some who could block his agenda. In Brazil, former president fans were arguing with the high court of that country. After Bolsonaro waspackedWith an attempt to cancel his defeat of the 2022 election, his party hopes to win enough space in the election for the next year to insert at least one of the judges. In El Salvador, the party of President Nayib Bukele removed the judges of the Supreme Court with whom he clashed.
BUKELEDid Trump take over the judiciary: “If you do not interfere with corrupt judges, you cannot repair the country,” Bukele wrote on X after Musk called Trump to follow the leadership of President Salvadorana.
“This is a basic authoritarian instinct,” said Steven Levitsky, co -authored “Democracy dying” and Harvard political scientist. “You cannot have a democracy in which the chosen government can do whatever he wants.”
It would take two -thirds of the American Senate to remove the bounded judge. With only 53 Republicans in the Chamber, it is very unlikely that there could be a supermarket. Trump’s administration, however, expressed a pronunciation of the incidence that the lower courts rule against it.
US Presidents have long clashed with courts
On Saturday night, the judge blocked the circle of deportations of people who claimed that Trump officials were members of the gang, although the administration endeddeportationAnyway more than 200. The second San Francisco judge demanded the administrationoverlookTens of thousands of federal workers for whom he ruled were probably irregularly fired. AdministrationappealedSeveral judgments held by efforts to complete the Supreme Court the constitutional guarantee of the nationality of birth.
And the administration is still struggling with organizations for help that the Government has not fulfilled the command of the federal judgepay themto work with a contract with the US Agency for International Development.
“You have these lower level judges trying to block the president’s agenda. It is very clear,” Trump’s spokeswoman Trump Caroline Leavitt said on Friday, adding that the judges had issued 16 orders who had blocked Trump’s initiatives compared to 14 against Biden over the previous four years.
For decades, the presidents have been breaking through the courts to check them. Biden complained when the courts blocked his efforts to forgive the debt of the student loan. Former President Barack Obama warned a conservative majority of the US Supreme Court not to cancel his significant expansion of health care.
In the 1930s, then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to expand the number of seats in the Supreme Court to get rid of his conservative majority, which is an idea that some Democrats wanted to re-examine during the Biden Presidency.
Respecting the courts the basis of the rule of law
But anti-legal rhetoric has not reached a point for decades, experts say. One of the reasons is that Trump has issued more orders than any other new president. Many of them rely on new legal theories about the presidential power that go against a long court precedent or never tested in court.
Anne Marie Slaughter, a former State Department officer in Obama’s administration, compared judges with judges in sports who spend the rules. She said that they were now advocating for the importance of the rule of law in young democracies and helped to establish legal systems in countries range from India to South Africa to ensure that they remain free.
“At this point, I think many of our allies and peers are deeply concerned and to be no longer seeing us as a lighthouse of democracy and the rule of law,” Slaughter said.
Rafal Pankowski, a Polish activist, recalled mass protests that followed the new demands that the State of the Populist Law and the Party of Justice appointed judges in 2019. They have also attractedsanctionsFrom the European Union to interfere with judicial independence.
These demonstrations, Pankowski said, contributed to the party losing power in the next election.
“Over time, people became difficult to follow the technical characteristics of legislation,” Pankowski said, “but the instinct to defend the independence of the judiciary was one of the main things behind the democratic movement.”
This story is originally shown on Fortune.com
Source link
