I think I am like the majority of the people when it comes to judicial reviews and the inner workings of government. I realize that today with all this social media we have all gained a heightened sense of that, at least we feel like we have anyway. The internet is crammed full of scholars and political analysts. I’m not going to say that it is a bad thing, although a little knowledge can sometimes be a dangerous thing. You can sometimes be led to the wrong conclusion by the absence of all the facts, being only half right. Look before you leap is still the best advice.

Once again I have read where a federal judge overruled an executive order. This one concerning displays at national museums and parks. They must be returned to the state they were in before this executive order. Without going into all the details it is about DEI. No matter what side of that issue you stand on I’m certain you could find a federal judge to support your position. I’m quite certain this decision will be appealed to a higher court until it reaches the supreme court. Even then, the court doesn’t have to listen to the argument if they don’t want to. In typical government fashion the law doesn’t give the court the “final say” as to the cases it hears, instead they are granted “nearly complete discretion” on that. The judges decide during recess what petitions they will listen to.

I have been reading a bit about all of that and it’s no wonder things move so slow. I am drawn to that today because judges overruling presidential executive orders seems to be becoming the normal way of doing business. Regardless of what political party has the man in the seat, that has been happening a great deal. The thing is this, a federal judge may overrule an executive order, issue an injunction, if in the opinion of that judge it violates federal law or is unconstitutional in some fashion, or in their opinion overstepped the powers of the executive branch. A great deal of that is very subjective and the reason we have lawyers arguing over all of that, sometimes for years!

I hear another “no kings” thing is being planned. It should be quite obvious to everyone that we do not have a king as he is being overruled on a regular basis. No one gets to overrule a King! I get it though, there are those that are just upset that they didn’t get their way. The “king” is just being mean. In our republic there are those checks and balances that prevent the consolidation of power. It is that structure that also causes a great deal of confusion and chaos in the government. Seems like it always takes a major event to get things done, to get us on the same page. 9/11was the last event that comes to mind. I wonder what will be the next! The whole covid thing was just a big mess! Government overreach? It certainly wasn’t a uniting thing.

I am concerned when federal judges are issuing injunctions simply because, in my opinion, they don’t like an executive order. The legality, the constitutionality of all executive orders are always subjective. If you have been paying attention at all you can see this. It really is the argument, “that’s what it says, but that isn’t what it means.” Consider this; the second amendment contains just 27 words yet the meaning of those words have been debated since the day they were written. “Shall not be infringed” seems clear enough to me, but what constitutes infringement?

We may never know unless the supreme court decides to take up that case and even then, it is subject to change at any time by any administration. Are we really reaching the point where we have to have all federal judges in agreement before anything can be decided upon? Do you see the ambiguity in all of that? The supreme court does not have the final say, congress alone has the final say. The executive branch does not have the final say, federal judges may overrule the executive branch. Federal judges do not have the final say however, the supreme court can overrule them, but only when the court decides to listen. The court typically receives 8000 petitions every year. Which ones to choose? Well now, that is up to those judges. They may not have the final word but can certainly defer that final word to a lower court by the refusal to hear the case. It’s sort of like, ask your mother.

The first amendment guarantees you the right to redress. That’s where the 8000 petitions come from. Of those only about 1-2% will be heard. That’s about 80 cases. In decades past the number was much higher as far as being heard. The number of petitions has remained the same, just the number heard is becoming fewer. I’m thinking it is simply because we are no longer certain of the answers or, we just don’t like those answers. Federal judges appear to be picking up on those petitions that the supreme court isn’t likely to hear, a sort of preemptive move. The objective is either to delay, or to force the court into hearing that. The wheels of justice turn very slowly indeed. President Truman had a sign on his desk, “the buck stops here” meaning he assumed responsibility. His administration was marked with corruption. That begs the question, just where does the buck stop? The answer is, with your vote. That is the way the system was designed to work.