Sessions Requests Draining Judicial Swamp

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

President Donald Trump, during the presidential campaign of 2016, constantly discussed draining the swamp.  So far, however, the swamp has been a big problem for the Trump administration.  Leaks.  Insubordination.  Internal strife.  Outside manipulation and sabotage.

The real damage has been coming from the courts.  The Democrats have hunkered down in the judiciary, doing all they can to use legal attacks to stop Trump's actions as President of the United States, while further embedding themselves so as to make it harder to dislodge them.  Problem is, the U.S. Constitution never gave the judicial branch such power.  In fact, coming out the gate, the judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  The judicial branch has no constitutionally granted legislative power, no enforcement power.  They simply have the authority to apply the law to the cases they hear.

While we have a society that believes the courts are there to check the other branches of government, the reality is, it is Congress' authority to check the power of the judiciary.  In the Exceptions Clause, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to limit make null and void unconstitutional rulings with legislation.  Also, because the Congress is authorized to create the inferior courts, Congress has the authority to limit, and even dismantle, the jurisdiction of federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

So, why haven't they?

Either, the politicians are ignorant of their authorities, fearful to use them, or are fully aware and have decided to refuse to do what is constitutionally afforded them.  Instead, we hear from Congress, and the media, “The courts have ruled, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

Do they even understand any of the principles of the United States Constitution that they take an oath to protect and defend?

Unfortunately, the American People don't even understand the Constitution.  We have come to believe the false version, the ideologically constructed version, that has been crammed down our collective throats ever since leftists began to realize they could twist the original intent at will by simply telling us we were too stupid to understand it, and they were somehow the keepers of the proper interpretation.

In Article III of the Constitution the powers granted to the judicial branch are limited, but as the creators of the inferior court system, Congress can eliminate any and all federal courts and judges, save for the Supreme Court of the United States, if they so desired.

While we are told that 70% of the judges are anti-constitutional liberal left Democrats, the first question has to be, "then why hasn't Congress tossed the unconstitutional members of the court system, and reorganized the inferior courts into something that is more in line with the original intent of the United States Constitution?"

When Trump talked about draining the swamp, did he also include in that the judicial swamp?  Remember, these are unelected persons given great power, and they think they have lifetime appointments.

The courts are out of control because they think they can do so without any consequence.  The proper checks and balances are not being used, and they have convinced us not to challenge their power.  Congress has neglected to exercise powers granted to it by the Constitution designed to check the courts.  All of this has added up to a refusal by the members and representatives of our republic to stop the courts from becoming a monstrosity of oligarchical power.

A large part of the problem is that we have accepted, hook, line and sinker, that the judicial branch's current role is to be the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution, and the ultimate and final check against anything and everything that happens in politics.

The concept is not only wrong, and unconstitutional, but suicidal to any system of liberty that allows such power to rest in the hands of those who seek to deconstruct the American System.

The judicial branch's powers as we believe them to be in today's political environment are found nowhere in the Constitution.

In fact, the judicial branch granted their current unconstitutional powers to themselves . . . and if a part of government seizes power, isn't that tyranny?  The "power" in question began in 1803 with John Marshall's written opinion regarding the Marbury v. Madison ruling.  With circular reasoning Marshall established judicial review as we know it today.  As a result, the Supreme Court has become a tyrannical oligarchy upon which all of our laws, and constitutional concepts, sit upon their shoulders.

Did the Founding Fathers, in the creation of a limited government, truly desire that all of that power should be held by a bunch of lawyers in black robes?  Heck, early on, the Framers were even against lawyers holding judicial positions, in the first place.

Now, the question is, has the Trump administration figured out that the out-of-control judicial authorities are unconstitutional, and that a part of draining the swamp has to be canning the infiltrators in the court system?

Perhaps.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has asked the remaining 46 U.S. attorneys who served under the Obama administration to resign, the Justice Department announced Friday, describing the move as part of an effort to ensure a "uniform transition."

Past Presidents have done similar things.

This is where the Congress is supposed to pull their thumbs out of their mouths, and start acting like the strongest branch of the three branches of government, as originally intended.

Yes, that's right, I just told you that we are not supposed to have three co-equal branches. . . but the three co-equal branches thing is a myth we can address another day.

Some of the U.S. attorneys, as in prior transitions of the White House, already had left the department. Sessions is simply asking that the remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys to tender their resignations.

“Until the new U.S. Attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our U.S. Attorney’s Offices will continue the great work of the Department in investigating, prosecuting, and deterring the most violent offenders,” said a recent statement.

It is customary, though not automatic, for the country's 93 U.S. attorneys to leave their positions once a new president is in office. Incoming administrations over the past several decades typically have replaced most U.S. attorneys during the first year or two.

Sessions' actions, however, are being closely scrutinized by Democrats and the usual methods, despite tradition, will be attacked.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement late Friday saying: “I’m surprised to hear that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have abruptly fired all 46 remaining U.S. attorneys."

Remember, it wasn't a firing.  It was a request of resignations, and traditionally, all U.S. attorneys are normally at risk during a changing of the guard at the White House.  But, Feinstein's response was typical of the liberal left, and expected.

More fireworks are yet to come.

UPDATE: http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/03/bharara-firing-draws-attention-of-media.html

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary