While you (hopefully not) were waiting for an explanation as to why the Epstein files and client list weren’t released, the lawfare against a sitting president, or Trump if you prefer, has taken a step toward what I can only call an idiocracy, or in this case, placing judges at any level above the duly elected representatives of the people.
Here’s the setup: Congress, following its constitutionally prescribed course, came to terms and passed what they call the Big Beautiful Bill. That course means the bill is proposed in the House, since it deals with funding and all such measures must be proposed in the People’s Chamber. After deliberation, amendments, etc., it was approved and sent to the Senate, where the process was repeated.
Once approved by both chambers, it was sent to President Trump, who signed the bill (on July 4) creating a law.
While there are good (tax cuts, no tax on tips, overtime or Social Security) and bad (raise on the debt ceiling) in the bill, there was one little codicil that caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and, as is par for the course, a lawsuit.
The bill ended funding for Planned Parenthood (for a year), and in true liberal fashion, that generated a lawsuit (?) after the bill was approved. Also in true liberal fashion, a judge issued a temporary injunction against implementing the measure.
In a separate but equally disturbing event, a federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction against the Trump administration banning it from enforcing the end of birthright citizenship. I call this disturbing because just recently, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that federal district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions because these judges cover only districts, not the country.
In this case, the judge granted a request to make the suit class action, supposedly giving him the authority to block the administrative branch in executing its duties.
I’m not trying to debate abortion or whether Planned Parent is a legitimate health care organization. Nor am I interested in arguing about the merits of what birthright citizenship ultimately means (not that I wouldn’t, it’s just not part of this discussion).
What I will point out is that in the latter case, the Supreme Court has ruled, and since the word Supreme is in the name, that’s all, folks. That’s how the three branches of government are supposed to work, and that’s how it’s laid out in the Constitution.
In the former case, the process for creating law was followed, and that’s also how the Constitution laid things out. The courts only step in if the law is being challenged on constitutional grounds; picking what parts should be followed cannot be done; indeed, the Supreme Court in the past ruled that the line-item veto was unconstitutional.
Believe it or not, there are remedies for this, because the Constitution also allows for that. However, setting one branch of government over another is not the way our republic is supposed to work, as the lady in the eSurance ad says. None of those remedies include throwing monkeys into the wrench because we don’t like the guy in charge.
Years ago, I wrote, semi-facetiously, that any training provided to elected officials should include showing them “Schoolhouse Rock” videos, especially the one called “I’m Just a Bill.”
I’m now thinking that this should be a regular part of continuing education or maybe be played on monitors in every edifice of government on an endless loop, because the structure of government is being usurped by activists bent on spending public funds as their own, or because of their hate for the elected president of the land.
Tony Farkas is editor of the San Jacinto News-Times and the Trinity County News-Standard. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
