The Democrats took a big risk by waging all-out war on Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and the rest of the Democrats in Congress just saw their decision blow up in their faces.
And that’s because the Supreme Court dealt Trump one big win. This is why Democrats were in tears.
Democrats employed a strategy of filing strategically placed lawsuits in handpicked district courts where Obama or Clinton judges sat to thwart the Trump agenda.
On no issue was the strategy of legal resistance more pronounced than on immigration.
Democrats could count on friendly local judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking or delaying President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” immigration agenda.
One by one the Trump administration defeated left-wing activist Judges’ nationwide injunctions on appeal at the Circuit or Supreme Courts.
But the ultimate victory may have come in a five to four Supreme Court ruling lifting a nationwide injunction blocking the President’s “public charge” rule.
The Trump administration decided to enforce a public charge rule that granted the government the right to deny visas to immigrants it judged would be likely to use welfare and leech off the American taxpayer.
In the decision lifting the nationwide injunction, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained why these orders were unconstitutional.
“When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies,” Gorsuch wrote.
But Gorsuch went even further.
Gorsuch’s opinion made it clear that the Supreme Court was looking for a case where they could tackle this issue and end the practice once and for all.
“It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions. Rather than spending their time methodically developing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes, and all based on expedited briefing and little opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence,” Gorsuch added.
The Supreme Court ending nationwide injunctions would cripple the Democrats’ resistance strategy.
Because elected officials fear primary challenges Congress rarely passes so-called “compromise” bills on big issues.
Of course these bills favor the left nine out of ten times so many conservatives are glad this is the case.
But that means the vast majority of policy-making is done by the President through executive orders or through federal agencies announcing new rule interpretations.
Without nationwide injunctions in their back pocket as a secret weapon, the President should be free to implement as much of his agenda as the Constitution legally allows a President to achieve through unilateral action.
Conservative Revival will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.