by Judicial Overreach Reaches New Heights of Absurdity
In a development that has constitutional scholars reaching for their bourbon and their law textbooks (in that order), a federal judge has apparently decided that her job description includes “legislating from the bench,” “rewriting statutes during lunch breaks,” and “generally pretending Congress doesn’t exist.” The jurist, whose name has been temporarily redacted to protect the guilty, issued a ruling this week that essentially rewrites federal law to match her personal policy preferences, then took a nap on the bench while bailiffs quietly wept.
The ruling, which legal experts describe as “creatively unconstitutional” and “what happens when someone doesn’t understand separation of powers,” blocks the implementation of a democratically passed law because the judge decided she could write a better one. “I’ve seen judicial activism before,” said one bewildered constitutional law professor, “but this is like watching someone show up to a potluck, throw out all the food, and insist everyone eat what they brought instead.”
According to court documents, the judge’s opinion spans 247 pages, approximately 200 of which explain why Congress got it wrong and how she would have written the legislation if anyone had bothered to ask her (they didn’t). The ruling cites various legal precedents, several of which appear to have been invented specifically for this case, and at least one reference to a dream the judge had where she was both a judge AND a congressperson, which apparently counts as legal reasoning now.
Constitutional experts note that the federal judiciary’s power is supposed to be limited to interpreting laws, not rewriting them based on personal policy preferences or vivid dreams about legislative authority. “There’s a reason we have three branches of government,” explained one scholar. “It’s so judges don’t just wake up one morning and decide they’re running the whole show.”
The judge’s defenders argue that she’s simply engaging in “robust judicial review” and “protecting constitutional principles,” which is what lawyers say when they mean “doing whatever she wants and hoping nobody notices.” Critics counter that if judges can simply rewrite laws they don’t like, then elections are pointless and we should just let federal courts run everything, which would certainly make civics classes more confusing.
The ruling has predictably thrilled people who agree with the judge’s politics and horrified those who don’t, with both sides conveniently forgetting that they’ll feel the exact opposite way when a judge from the other side does the same thing next week. “Today’s judicial hero is tomorrow’s activist judge,” noted one political scientist. “It all depends on whose ox is being gored, or in this case, whose legislation is being completely ignored.”
Legal observers point out that this trend of judges effectively legislating has been growing for years, with courts increasingly willing to substitute their judgment for that of elected representatives. “We’ve gone from ‘interpreting the law’ to ‘well, here’s what I would have done if I were Congress,'” said one frustrated lawyer. “Next thing you know, judges will be holding floor debates and committee hearings in their chambers.”
The case is expected to be appealed, which means taxpayers get to fund several more years of legal wrangling while lawyers on both sides bill $800 per hour to argue about whether a single judge can just overrule the legislative branch because she feels like it. The Supreme Court will eventually weigh in, probably issue some narrowly-crafted opinion that satisfies nobody, and the cycle will begin again.
In the meantime, Congress has issued a strongly-worded statement expressing concern about judicial overreach, which they will follow up with absolutely nothing because taking meaningful action might require them to agree on something, and we can’t have that. “We’re deeply troubled by judges who think they’re legislators,” said one senator, who then immediately returned to doing nothing about it.
The judge herself has remained silent since issuing her ruling, presumably busy in chambers drafting her next legislative masterpiece or perhaps organizing a committee hearing on whether she should also take over the executive branch. Sources close to the judge report she’s been heard muttering about “efficiency” and “getting things done,” which are traditionally not phrases associated with lifetime-appointed officials who face zero electoral consequences.
As this constitutional crisis unfolds in slow motion, Americans are reminded that the separation of powers is more like a gentle suggestion than a firm boundary, and that judges who dream they’re Congress might just wake up one day and make it a reality, one overreaching opinion at a time.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/federal-judge-dreams-shes-congress/
SOURCE: Bohiney.com (Federal Judge Dreams She’s Congress, Blocks Everything)
