Lawfare and Rogue Judges Threaten the Rule of Law, By Chris Knight (Florida)

The article "Trump's War Against the Deep State Starts with the Courts" by Steve Deace,

https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/trumps-war-against-the-deep-state-starts-with-the-courts

presents a compelling argument that the rule of law in the United States is under siege. It contends that a concerted campaign of "lawfare"—the strategic use of legal processes to achieve political ends—and the actions of rogue judges are undermining the foundational principles of democratic governance. This isn't just a threat to Donald Trump's second term as president; it's a direct assault on the constitutional order, where unelected judicial activists wield illegitimate power to subvert the will of the people.

The rule of law, at its core, demands impartiality, predictability, and adherence to constitutional boundaries—ensuring that no one, not even the government, is above the law. Yet, Deace argues that the political Left has weaponised the judiciary to thwart Trump's agenda, a tactic honed during his first term and now poised to escalate. The evidence is stark: Trump, who has served as president for just 18 percent of the 21st century, faced nearly 70 percent of all federal injunctions issued against a sitting president in that time. A staggering 92 percent of those rulings came from judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Compare this to Joe Biden, whose tenure saw sweeping policies—open borders, vaccine mandates, tech censorship—yet faced fewer injunctions in his entire presidency than Trump did in a single month (February 2025 alone). This disparity isn't coincidence; it's a pattern of targeted judicial interference.

Lawfare, as Deace describes it, isn't about justice—it's about power. The Left, he asserts, starts with a desired policy outcome, however extreme, and then fabricates a legal process to legitimise it. Judges, lacking constitutional authority to legislate, issue rulings that override executive action or congressional intent. For instance, the article highlights cases where courts have granted rights to foreign nationals—like Venezuelan drug lords—overriding immigration policy, while denying protections to unborn children, a clear overreach into legislative territory. This isn't adjudication; it's activism dressed up in robes. When a single district judge in Iowa can halt a national policy with a nationwide injunction, as Deace notes, the judiciary becomes an unelected "perpetual constitutional convention," rewriting laws to suit ideological whims.

Rogue judges amplify this threat by abandoning judicial restraint for political agendas. The article points to Obama- and Biden-appointed judges in liberal strongholds like New York and D.C., who consistently block Trump's initiatives—often without precedent or justification. A recent example from broader reporting, involves an Obama-appointed judge barring Trump's Treasury Secretary from accessing Treasury data, a ruling made without allowing the administration's lawyers to argue their case. Such actions don't just frustrate policy; they erode the separation of powers, turning courts into a weapon against the executive branch. When judges act as partisan gatekeepers, they undermine the democratic process, where elected officials—not lifetime appointees—are meant to reflect the people's will.

This judicial overreach threatens the rule of law by replacing impartiality with bias and predictability with chaos. Deace cites historical precedent: for 50 years, the Left has used courts to impose policies—like abortion rights or same-sex marriage—that couldn't win through legislatures, bypassing democratic debate. Now, with Trump's return, the strategy intensifies. Federal injunctions, once rare, have become routine—over 70 against Trump's first term alone, per the article—disrupting governance and creating legal uncertainty. When courts can nullify a president's lawful authority based on political leanings, the law becomes a tool of the powerful, not a shield for the governed.

The stakes are existential. Deace warns that the Left's reliance on "rogue judges" mirrors its past use of the Russia investigation and Fauci's pandemic edicts—ploys to derail Trump's first term. Today, with a slim Republican congressional majority and a judiciary packed with progressive appointees, the risk is greater. If unelected judges can dictate national policy, the people's agency—secured by a revolutionary war against unaccountable rule—evaporates. The article recalls Iowa's 2010 ousting of state supreme court justices via retention election, a rare victory Deace helped lead, as proof that pushback is possible. Yet without broader action—curtailing judicial overreach, stripping illegitimate power—the rule of law bends toward tyranny.

This isn't just Trump's fight; it's a crisis for Western governance. Lawfare and rogue judges don't merely obstruct one administration—they dismantle the principle that laws apply equally, upheld by neutral arbiters. When courts become battlegrounds for settling political scores, trust in the system collapses. The Georgia Roundup verdict against Bayer (March 2025) shows juries can see through corporate spin—why not judicial overreach? If Big Agri can hide risks, so can a politicised bench. We must demand accountability, not acquiescence, or the rule of law becomes a relic, supplanted by the rule of whoever controls the gavel.

https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/trumps-war-against-the-deep-state-starts-with-the-courts

"We are not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be.

For more than a generation, the right has either failed or refused to acknowledge this essential truth. Meanwhile, the left has embraced it with unwavering commitment. As a result, it was on the verge of fulfilling Antonio Gramsci's vision of a "long march through the institutions" — until the 2024 election stopped the left just short of the goal line.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left's misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader.

The good news is that after the 2024 election, we're still in the fight. The bad news? We have 99 yards to march in the opposite direction. Here's how we got here.

The left understands that politics is ultimately about power — acquiring it and using it — not about process. Leftists start with the policy outcome they want, no matter how extreme or destructive, and then fabricate a process to make it appear "legal." That's how judges, with no constitutional authority to do so, can decide that Venezuelan drug lords have a greater right to live in America than unborn babies have to be born.

Meanwhile, the right has typically responded by meticulously adhering to every subsection of every constitutional doctrine in its desperate, fleeting attempts to preserve what remains of sanity. And the right has done so at a glacial pace — while the left sprints toward Gomorrah.

Aggression on many fronts

Enter Donald Trump.

Unconventional quarterbacks rarely score 99-yard touchdowns, but they change the game. The right's shift in leadership last decade introduced a wild card that made the left feel genuinely threatened for the first time. Instead of a predictable, by-the-book leader — akin to a classic drop-back passer — Trump operates best outside the pocket, forcing opponents to react to him.

His administration shattered the traditional "first 100 days" playbook, which typically focuses on one major campaign promise at a time. Instead, from day one, Trump aggressively took on the left across multiple fronts simultaneously.

This unpredictability has sent the left into a panic, driving leftists to act in ways previously confined to their most fevered fantasies. That's why Trump faced two coup attempts in his first term. The Russian collusion hoax, orchestrated through the intelligence community, was nothing more than a psychological operation designed to nullify the 2016 election.

The second coup attempt came in the form of COVID-19 — a manufactured crisis weaponized by the bureaucratic swamp, with Anthony Fauci leading the charge. This psyop wasn't about public health. It was designed to ensure Trump's defeat in the 2020 election.

When that failed, leftists tried to imprison him, hoping to prevent his return. When that, too, didn't work, they even attempted to assassinate him. That, by sheer providence, also failed.

Now, with its back against the wall, the ruling class has deployed its ultimate weapon — the most powerful psyop of all. The one that, for decades, has made Republicans surrender without a fight the moment they hear four dreaded words: "The courts have spoken."

Injunctions as weapons

Trump has served as president for just 18% of the 21st century, yet he has been the target of nearly 70% of all federal injunctions issued against a sitting president in that time. An overwhelming 92% of those rulings came from Democrat-appointed judges. In February alone, Trump faced more federal injunctions than Joe Biden has during his entire presidency.

The same Biden who opened the borders to drug cartels and human traffickers, mandated controversial COVID-19 vaccines as a condition for employment, and pressured Big Tech to suppress dissenting views. In a just and rational world, such corruption would be unthinkable — but it was where we lived until just a couple of months ago.

Trump has thrown the Democratic Party into chaos, but the swamp's power structures remain intact. The intelligence community, the administrative state, and activist judges continue their work, shielding the establishment from accountability. Hardly a day passes without a leftist judge fabricating authority the Constitution never granted, imposing new "rights" and obligations as phony as a country called "Palestine."

Just as the Russia collusion hoax and Fauci-funded COVID hysteria were used to derail Trump's first term, the judiciary is now the left's weapon of choice against his second. Leftists will not stop unless they are forced to stop.

Beat the system

The right has little experience — let alone success — challenging judicial supremacy. For too long, conservatives have played by the left's rules, expecting fair outcomes in a system rigged against them.

But one example proves it can be done. I know it well because it wouldn't have happened without me.

In 2010, Iowa made history as the first state to remove state supreme court justices through a retention election, holding them accountable for their rulings. I was one of the movement's leaders. No one expected us to succeed. The Republican Party wanted no part of it. We had no support from GOP candidates for governor or Senate. Republican-aligned trial lawyers stayed out of it. We were an underdog coalition taking on a judicial leviathan.

On election night, we won by 10 points. All three justices we targeted received higher percentages of "no" votes than the Republican gubernatorial nominee — who had refused to support us.

We accomplished this with just $1 million, a small sum for a modern statewide campaign. Not only did we convince voters to take a stand, but we also got them to turn over their ballots and vote in a way they never had before.

For months, my three-hour radio show — broadcast on the state's largest media platform — focused on the retention vote, providing invaluable in-kind support. After the victory, key backers of our campaign approached me with an offer to fund a national expansion of my show. They knew we wouldn't have won without that messaging effort, and that's how I ended up where I am today.

Opportunity of the century

That campaign taught us several lessons — lessons the Trump administration would do well to apply now.

First, this is not a debate over legal theory or constitutional interpretation. It's a battle over authority — not just between branches of government but over whether we still have a government that operates with the consent of the governed. Who is truly sovereign in America? The people or the judges? No branch of government — especially an unelected one — should be above the will of the people.

Second, the foundation of this fight is the source of law itself. Democrat-appointed judges reject "the laws of nature and nature's God," acting as if they are a law unto themselves. They do not see themselves as just a Supreme Court but as supreme beings. Whatever they decree must be enforced, with no questions asked, despite their lack of any inherent enforcement power. This is the essence of dictatorship.

Third, exposing this reality is crucial. These judges must be drawn into open confrontation where they admit their unchecked power. Voters — particularly those even remotely sympathetic to us — will be infuriated by their smug entitlement.

Finally, the people need a galvanizing issue that forces them to reject the myth of judicial supremacy. Their current outrage over an urgent cause must outweigh their long-standing deference to the courts.

We haven't had a president challenge judicial overreach since Abraham Lincoln defied the Supreme Court's heinous Dred Scott decision by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote America's mission statement, spent much of his public life warning about the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. He feared that if left unrestrained, corrupt judges would twist the Constitution into "a mere thing of wax." He argued that the other branches must do their duty to prevent judicial usurpation.

Trump has an opportunity to turn the left's misuse of the courts against it. He has already set the stage for a second term that could make him a once-in-a-century leader. Now, he faces a moment that could define his presidency. Stripping illegitimate power from unelected judges and returning it to the people who rightfully govern stands as the ultimate act of populism.

For the last 50 years, the left has imposed its most destructive policies on the country by judicial fiat. If Trump takes bold action now, he has a chance to cement his place in history alongside Lincoln and Jefferson."