American government and society have been irretreivably warped – twisted – by the so-called justice system. The federal judicial branch and system established by the US Constitution and then changed and frankly corrupted by Congress and the influence and desires of the judges themselves.

As a result, in 2025, the American federal court system is a monstrosity that the Founding Fathers never envisioned and would not have tolerated. And because the various State systems are modeled largely on the current FedGov model, they too are tainted – and often downright corrupt.

Like the wicked judge of Jesus’ sermon, sometimes even a corrupt system and the people in it can do the right thing. At least now and then. But that is not what right, moral, or needed by a free people. And as time goes on, the corrupt nature gains more power and causes more harm.

So today, we must ask some fresh questions. Regardless of whether we believe that The Donald is a threat to liberty or a breath of fresh air – or just more of the same old, same old. We have an example of how power corrupts, when it comes to judges. Let us ask, can a circuit court judge stop the policies of a nation’s president? We understand that in a republic – even a degenerate one – an executive’s powers are supposed to be severely limited. But…

It’s being tried. During Trump 2.0 (all of 2+ months old), at least 15 court injunctions have stalled his orders, from birthright citizenship reforms to deporting Tren de Aragua gangsters and more between. Harvard Law Review statistics report 12 injunctions against Obummer and 14 against Uncle Joe. During The Donald’s first term, however, 64 nationwide injunctions were filed against his policies.

Now, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) plans to introduce a bill to stop district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that stop presidential orders. Some think that it willl also force some hypocritical Democrats to eat their own words.

In 2023, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) raged against “special interest groups playing hopscotch with American courts” to snag biased judges, He pushed a bill for three-judge panels on nationwide injunctions. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) co-sponsored the bill, decrying judge-shopping that let one rogue judge halt Uncle Joe’s policies. In 2022, even liberal Nazgul Elena Kagan complained that “it just can’t be right” for a single judge to freeze national policy.

Is it perhaps time for Wyden, Ross, and their crew to put their money where their mouth is and join Hawley? Does this restore the executive branch’s constitutional share of power? Does it halt judges who think they can play dictator from the bench? We at TPOL would not think so.

Nationwide injunctions have become a judicial plague. Hawley’s bill would chain these orders to a judge’s district or the suing parties, stopping their nationwide reach. Just in the interests of curtailing the power of unelected and pretty-much unaccountable nazgul to cause mischief and dish out stupidity.

Hawley’s not alone. Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) “No Rogue Rulings Act” already cleared the House Judiciary Committee, aiming to cap the reach of district courts.

Hawley’s bill is a direct response to Judge James Boasberg who tried to force deportation flights to El Salvador to turn back in mid-air, despite Pres. Trump’s clear authority to authorize the flight under the Alien Enemies Act. It would reduce the impact of a single judge, but still in essence preserve the present system and status quo.

We note that the Constitution allows the removal of federal judges for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and a judge’s chronic overreach qualifies as such. At least in the eyes of many.

But it is clearly not enough. The first Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Marshall, in effect launched a successful coup against both the legislative and executive branches. He claimed a power that was not (and still is not) clearly stated – or even really necessarily implied – in the Constitution. As a result, for almost two and a half centuries, the Nine Nazgul have pounded on the other two branches. In a way that the Framers did not contemplate and would not have desired.

This arrogant assumption of power is compounded by the life terms of most of them. Not just the Nine, but every judge. Expecting Congress to actually impeach and try one? Look – that hen has teeth!

Exploring solutions is beyond this commentary at this time. But readers are asked to suggest what might be an alternative. Beyond politics by assassination. And using those with J.D. or Esquire after their name to build artificial reefs. Or improve the quality of compost.

Your thoughts, dear readers?