“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
So goes the retort famously attributed to President Andrew Jackson in response to an adverse Supreme Court ruling that trampled on his orders and decision-making. Whether Jackson said these words or not, we will never know. But there has always been a grating tension between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch in our system that some would argue was by design. And back in 1831, the President stood squarely against the judiciary and gave the highest court the proverbial finger.
Now, President Trump finds himself once again in a similar position to Jackson, with a rogue judge actively trying to sink his agenda. On July 7th, Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama-appointed judge from the district of Massachusetts, blocked the Medicaid cuts to Planned Parenthood in the “Big, Beautiful” Budget Bill. This came directly after Planned Parenthood sued the Trump Administration regarding the same provision. Then, on July 28th, Judge Talwani put her thumb on the scale again, this time ensuring through a preliminary injunction restored Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood’s facilities that were collecting $800,000 or less in revenue. She was interested in enforcing what she wanted, not what the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ensured—ignoring a Congress and President’s agenda that the American people voted for, simply because she could.
Of course, Planned Parenthood reacted to the BBB kicking and screaming. This is no surprise. They could have continued to receive federal funding, if they agreed to only provide actual healthcare to women and not use “women’s health” as window dressing to hide their abortion factory. Their intents and complaints are just as disingenuous as Judge Talwani - who claims to be protecting Constitutional rights while denying preborn babies theirs.
Ultimately, the very lives of preborn Americans are in the balance in the face of this court’s partisanship. The American people committed to Life are frustrated and angered by the fact that a lower court District Judge can block the duly elected President’s sweeping agenda. We turn back to Jackson to look for precedents, to see if there is a way around this establishment status quo cosplaying as law.
Recommended
But President Jackson did not set the precedent during his tenure. More than a century later, President Harry Truman did in a showdown with steelworkers during the Korean War, in the Steel Strike of 1952. This conflict would set the standard for Presidents against the Supreme Court: when the Supreme Court rules against the Executive Branch, the Executive Branch is supposed to bow its head in respectful defeat. But the debate has not been settled.
It has been argued that the President is justified broadly under the “Take Care” Clause to ensure laws are faithfully executed under the Constitution. The Unitary Executive Theory, which argues that the President has absolute executive authority, which he does as the Chief Executive of this country. Therefore, these judges have no say on actions that will save the lives of Americans he is constitutionally obligated to protect—especially the preborn.
Article Three of the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court is to interpret laws. Not make them, but to interpret them - and that is a defined, specific lane. This constraint is even clearer for lower courts.
Activist judges have been on a rampage during the Trump Administration’s second term in office. This overreaching order out of Boston must be reversed to save our fellow Americans and ensure that they are given what they are promised: - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A runaway judiciary is a problem that’s even caught the attention of the Supreme Court.
Looking at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson arguments in favor of a recent blanket federal injunction – designed to stop whatever policy the Republican President seems to endorse – Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote: "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
Because of the Leftist media and liberal scholars that dominate our Academia, we live in an America where lower level, hacktivist judges not only view themselves as equals to a Supreme Court Justice, but, using judicial weapons known as “nationwide injunctions”, they think they are on the same level as the President of the United States. These delusional, deep state assets righteously mistake their black robes for the red robes of royalty.
In light of this kind of overreach, Students for Life Action (SFLAction) calls on Congress to begin the impeachment process for judges who need a lesson on separation of powers. They are judges, not rulers. Whatever happened to “No Kings”?
KRISTAN HAWKINS is president of Students for Life of America and Students for Life Action, with nearly 1,600 groups on middle and high school, college and university, medical and law school campuses in all 50 states. Follow her @KRISTANHAWKINS or subscribe to her podcast, The Kristan Hawkins Show. @kristanhawkins
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member