One of the greatest obstacles President Trump has faced is liberal judges pushing their social agenda on the American people. For years, these elites have ruled unchecked, signing things into law and circumventing Congress. Well no more!
A judge’s responsibility is to interpret the Constitution objectively and determine whether or not laws are just. There’s a reason Lady Justice is traditionally portrayed blindfolded, holding the scales of justice.
This is because she’s impartial, weighing all court cases based purely on their merits and not on her own bias. The decisions judges make establish precedent, and that can affect laws for literally hundreds of years to come.
So when judges begin injecting their own opinion into cases, it throws the entire system into jeopardy. Radical Obama appointees have been relentlessly attacking Trump’s lawful executive orders, and so they have overstepped their Constitutional powers. In addition, certain groups have been illegally appointing judges…without Presidential approval.
Luckily, the Supreme Court agrees, and just handed down the EXACT decision Trump has been needing.
More via: Reuters
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.