Activist Judges Outraged After Supreme Court Overturns Their Anti-Trump Rulings

Ten federal judges complained about the Supreme Court’s rulings that cut in favor of President Donald Trump and overturned lower courts’ rulings.

The judges, who chose to remain anonymous, were part of a 12-member panel that included both Democratic and Republican appointees, Fox News reported.

The judges spoke with NBC News about the spate of rulings that overturn lower courts’ decisions when they get to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and many attempts to block Trump’s agenda have been thwarted once the decision works its way up to Washington, D.C.

These decisions come in the form of emergency rulings, which were previously rare but have become more common as judges repeatedly attempt to undermine the president’s agenda.

The judges who were asked about this trend stated that they believe it’s a criticism of the lower courts and demonstrates disloyalty to their authority.

“It is inexcusable,” one of the judges interviewed said of the Supreme Court.

“They don’t have our backs.”

However, the president sees it differently, as he has repeatedly warned that federal judges are intentionally chipping away at his agenda with their rulings, rather than examining the laws.

The judges believe that Trump’s outspoken criticism of their conduct has led to a dangerous situation.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller indeed stated that rulings blocking Trump’s tariffs amounted to a “judicial coup,” and the president has repeatedly criticized the judiciary for what he believes is bias against him.

Still, the ominous predictions some made about Trump’s habit of freely criticizing them are out of proportion.

One judge said that “somebody is going to die” because the Supreme Court has decided to overturn the lower courts’ rulings, while another judge claimed they were being “thrown under the bus” by the high court.

“It’s almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a ‘judicial coup,'” yet another judge chimed in.

Despite these criticisms from the three judges, a fourth, who was an Obama appointee, acknowledged that some of what Trump has said about the lower courts’ agenda-driven decisions has merit.

“The whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue,” the judge said.

“As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”

“Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry,” the fourth judge conceded.

“They are partially right to feel the way they feel.”

Nevertheless, Trump has a point about how the courts are being used against him.

The president believes his agenda has been unfairly attacked using litigation, and it’s no secret that his opponents have intentionally filed lawsuits where the court overseeing the matter would reliably rule against him.

According to the Washington Examiner, legal experts say it’s a practice Democrats and Republicans employ, but it has gone into overdrive during Trump’s presidency.

“Many of these lawsuits are being filed in places like California, Washington State, New York, Boston, other courts around the country where I suspect litigants are more likely to get a favorable with those challenging these policies, expect to get a more favorable judge who might be more inclined to rule in their favor,” said Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage foundation and former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida.

The court will then issue injunctions that apply nationwide, a practice which was halted by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Trump v. CASA.

During a news briefing in May, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained the extent of the problem.

“Nationwide injunctions ordered against the first Trump administration, Trump 1.0, account for more than half of the injunctions issued in this country since 1963,” she pointed out at the time.

“And President Trump had more injunctions in one full month of office, in February, than Joe Biden had in three years.”

The courts even “prohibited the Trump administration from eliminating federal funding for child transgender surgery and mutilation, a practice that the American people overwhelmingly reject.”

The Supreme Court is meant to be a stopgap against rogue judges, and it appears that’s precisely what it has been doing.

The federal judges who were asked about this practice are incensed about being overruled by the high court because they have been caught in the act and stopped from carrying out this cynical mission.

Even if they don’t like it, this is precisely how the judiciary is supposed to work.