Patricia McCarthy asserts that activist judges, particularly those aligned with progressive ideologies, are engaging in a "colour revolution" to thwart Trump's campaign promises, including deporting illegal immigrants, revitalising manufacturing, reducing trade deficits, addressing national debt, and reforming the military's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. This judicial resistance, she argues, is not merely a legal disagreement but a concerted effort to subvert the will of the American electorate, who re-elected Trump in 2024 to enact these changes.
The article claims that judges are ignoring the Constitution, which McCarthy cites Obama as criticising for limiting government power. By issuing rulings that block deportations, protect redundant government jobs, and sustain extravagant spending, these judges are accused of abusing their authority to advance a Leftist agenda. For example, McCarthy highlights judges stopping deportations of criminals, such as an MS-13 gang member, prioritising ideological goals over public safety.
Even the Supreme Court, traditionally a bastion of legal impartiality, is implicated. Chief Justice John Roberts is criticised for his ruling on Obamacare as a tax, suggesting external pressures or blackmail. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, expected to be originalists, are described as disappointments, aligning with progressive justices like Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, who are labelled as DEI hires lacking intellectual rigour. This perceived betrayal undermines public trust in the judiciary as a fair arbiter.
This judicial overreach is framed as a continuation of failed Democratic strategies—lawfare and assassination attempts—to neutralise Trump, now pivoting to the courts to achieve what elections and violence could not.
The judiciary's actions, as described, threaten social cohesion by eroding trust in institutions, exacerbating cultural divides, and prioritising ideological minorities over the majority's interests. Social cohesion relies on shared norms, trust in governance, and a sense of fairness, all of which are undermined by the following dynamics:
The article argues that activist judges, by ignoring the Constitution and obstructing Trump's agenda, are betraying the public's mandate. This fuels a crisis of confidence, as seen in related American Thinker pieces noting plummeting trust in the judiciary due to rulings against Trump's policies, such as foreign aid freezes and deportations. When the judiciary is perceived as a partisan tool—described as "criminals in black robes" in another article—the public loses faith in the rule of law, a cornerstone of civic unity.
McCarthy cites judges protecting an MS-13 thug, which resonates with public frustration over immigration enforcement. Such actions alienate the "normal 80%" who support Trump's America-first policies, deepening distrust.
The Supreme Court's failure to consistently uphold constitutional principles, as seen in Roberts' Obamacare ruling or Barrett and Kavanaugh's deviations, amplifies perceptions of a "Judas judiciary." This betrayal narrative, articulated in a March 2025 American Thinker article, portrays Roberts as a turncoat, further eroding trust in the highest court.
A judiciary seen as hostile to the majority's values risks fracturing the social contract, as citizens question whether justice serves the common good or elite interests.
McCarthy argues that the judiciary's actions align with a radical 20% of the population, championing progressive causes like DEI, critical race theory (CRT), transgenderism, and climate change policies, which she deems "nonsensical" and divisive. By prioritising these ideologies, judges alienate the 80% who seek a return to traditional American values, as embodied by Trump's "Make America Great Again" vision.
The judiciary's support for policies like men in women's sports or explicit sex education in preschools is seen as an imposition of "dark woke" values, a term McCarthy uses to describe increasingly profane and aggressive progressive tactics. This widens the cultural chasm, pitting traditionalists against progressives and fostering resentment among working- and middle-class Americans who feel their values are under siege.
The article claims the Left shows contempt for Christian values while revering Muslims, creating perceptions of unequal treatment. This selective favouritism, combined with judicial rulings that protect illegal immigrants over citizens, fuels ethnic and religious tensions, undermining the shared identity necessary for cohesion.
These divides echo concerns in "Beyond Brazilification," where Peter Robertson describes Britain's social fabric unravelling due to imported global conflicts and eroded norms. Similarly, the U.S. judiciary's actions risk importing ideological conflicts that fragment society.
The judiciary's obstruction of Trump's economic policies—deportations, job creation, and debt reduction—disproportionately harms the middle and working classes, further straining social cohesion. McCarthy argues that activist judges enable illegal immigration, which takes jobs from citizens, and protect wasteful spending, exacerbating economic inequality.
By blocking deportations, judges sustain a system where, as McCarthy claims, illegal migrants displace American workers, a concern echoed in American Thinker's April 15, 2025, article on judges "running out the deportation clock." This economic disenfranchisement breeds resentment, as citizens feel the system prioritises foreigners over their livelihoods.
The judiciary's alignment with the "deep state" is seen as protecting bureaucratic bloat, as evidenced by rulings against firing redundant government workers. This entrenches a managerial elite, alienating ordinary Americans who bear the tax burden, a dynamic akin to Robertson's "double bind" of policing and predation in Britain.
Economic frustration, coupled with perceived judicial bias, fuels populist anger, risking social unrest as groups feel excluded from the American dream.
By obstructing Trump's agenda, the judiciary overrides the democratic mandate of the 2024 election, where voters endorsed his platform. This subverts the principle that governance reflects the people's will, a key pillar of social cohesion. McCarthy cites the Cloward-Piven strategy, suggesting the Left aims to "overthrow the freedom and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution" through judicial overreach.
American Thinker's April 20, 2025, article questions whether it's time to "ignore the judiciary," citing judges like James Boasberg who impose burdensome deportation requirements. This risks a constitutional crisis, as the executive may defy judicial rulings, further destabilising governance and public trust.
When judges prioritise a radical minority's agenda, they disenfranchise the majority, fostering cynicism about democracy. This mirrors Robertson's warning of a "dissolving glue" in civic society, where shared norms collapse, leaving society fragmented.
The judiciary's "colour revolution" threatens social cohesion by creating a perception of a two-tiered system: one where elites and minorities are protected, and another where the majority's interests are ignored. This echoes the "liquid ferality" described in "Beyond Brazilification," where high-trust societies erode under chaotic, globalised pressures. In the U.S., judicial activism imports ideological battles—DEI, immigration, climate change—that fracture national unity, much like Britain's imported conflicts.
If judicial overreach persists, it could provoke backlash, from civil disobedience to vigilante justice, as trust in institutions collapses.
The article's concerns align with globalist critiques in American Thinker's April 16, 2025, piece, which warns of "globalist conquistadors" undermining national sovereignty. Judicial alignment with globalist agendas, such as open borders or climate policies, risks subordinating American interests, further alienating citizens. There is a lesson here for conservatives across the West, as the law, under Leftist control, is a political weapon, lawfare.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/04/the_color_revolution_waged_by_our_judiciary.html
"The color revolution waged by our judiciary
"Color revolutions are a political term used to describe turbulent political events: mass street protests and riots in order to achieve a revolutionary change of government. Some revolutionary upheavals are successful and some remain only attempts," Eurasia Review writes.
The Democrats sought and failed to take President Trump out via their many absurd legal challenges (aka lawfare). The two assassination attempts on his life failed.
Now that he has been re-elected, they are using every new trick they can devise to again destroy his presidency, again through the courts.
Sadly, there are more than enough activist judges to undertake the job of stopping every move Trump makes to fulfill his campaign promises.
The left hates the president, his supporters, and a majority of the American people. They loathe the Constitution because, as Obama commented, "It says what the government must not do, not what it must do."
Those activist judges? They have decided to simply ignore our founding document. They do not seem to care about the actual law if it can be abused to stop Trump's agenda – deport all illegals, beginning with the criminals, bring manufacturing back to America, attempt to fix our catastrophic trade deficits, and begin to pay down the $37 trillion in debt.
Trump has also pledged to cure our DEI-damaged military, and boy, does the Pentagon hate that particular goal.
But all these activist judges are doing their worst.
Sadly, so is the Supreme Court. SCOTUS is no longer the last refuge or the last resort, the place where the law is fairly applied. Chief Justice John Roberts was lost to constitutionalists when he declared that Obamacare was a mere tax.
At the time, it seemed clear that someone had gotten to him, had leverage over him, maybe even blackmailed him.
He has been off the constitutional reservation ever since.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson were both DEI hires. Neither of them has the intellectual firepower of Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.
Justice Elena Kagan gets it right on rare occasions. It is Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh who are grievous disappointments. There were a few warnings about Coney Barrett that were not heeded. Kavanaugh was perhaps so traumatized by the absurd attempt to derail his nomination, and then the assassination bid that was treated as trivial by woke local authorities, which it seems to have damaged him forever.
Whatever the reasons, those two have failed to live up to the promise that they were both originalists. They, too, are on board to stop President Trump from fulfilling his pledges to the American people.
The Democrats have doubled down on stupid, throwing all good sense, if they ever had any, to the wind to champion the rescue of an MS-13 thug from his home nation, El Salvador.
Activist, anti-Constitution judges are stopping all deportations, stopping the firings of thousands of redundant government workers, and stopping cuts to wildly extravagant spending of taxpayer dollars. It seems clear that the deep state is fighting back in the dirtiest ways possible.
It is as if they truly do think money grows on trees, and that their own cash cows will always deliver, as middle- and working-class Americans lose more jobs to illegal migrants. They do not care about middle- and working-class Americans; not one bit. They do not care about the Constitution or the Judeo-Christian values on which the Founders drew their brilliance.
They have only contempt for religious Jews and Christians but seem to revere Muslims. It is only Muslims who must never be offended.
Our left is obsessed with continuing all the nonsensical cultural theories like DEI, CRT and unrelenting support for transgenderism; they promote it, shove it down the throats of parents and little kids.
They support men playing in women's sports, men in women's bathrooms, and grossly inappropriate sex education in pre-schools, virtually encouraging toddlers to think they can be the opposite gender just by wishing it.
They continue to push all the Al-Gorian climate change nonsense even though it has all proven to be fabricated fear-mongering, a globalist operation to control the masses and how they live.
They are on the wrong side of every issue that plagues the country. And now they are embracing something called "dark woke," purposefully becoming ruder and more profane.
They think Rep. Jasmine Crockett is their new role model and that AOC could be president!
All of this malicious behavior should ensure a massive GOP victory in the midterms.
That is what the Dems are so doggedly trying to prevent.
The Dems are always on the side of the radical 20%, against the normal 80% who would like to see America be great again.
The left thinks it can "manage our decline," while Trump wants to fix decades of poor management and make the U.S. great again.
May President Trump and his team find a way to circumvent the malevolent judiciary's color revolution meant to delay and deny the implementation of what he plans to do to reorient our country toward renewed success.
Eric Hoffer wrote that, "The leader has to be practical and a realist yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist."
That quote perfectly describes Donald Trump, which is why the left hates and fears him so much. They have no good intentions for our nation; they are trying savagely to execute Cloward and Piven's plan to overthrow the freedom and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." --Thomas Sowell