The far more relevant and potentially ominous reference concerns the increasing usage of judicial activism we continue to see, with politically predisposed, activist judges engaging in a seemingly unspoken, concerted strategy to undermine President Donald Trump at every opportunity — validly so or not.

Consider the following:

More nationwide injunctions and restraining orders have been issued against Trump in the past month that were issued against the Biden administration in four years. On Wednesday alone, four different federal judges ordered Elon Musk to reinstate USAID workers (something he and DOGE have no authority to do), ordered President Trump to disclose sensitive operational details about the deportation flights of alleged terrorists, ordered the Department of Defense to admit individuals suffering from gender dysphoria to the military, and ordered the Department of Education to issue $600 million in DEI grants to schools.

Whatever label we choose to slap on it, the practice of judges making rulings based on their policy views rather than their honest interpretation of the law and the U.S. Constitution is upon us in the Second Age of Trump.

"On one level," wrote John Daniel Davidson, senior editor at The Federalist on Thursday, in an op-ed titled "The Judicial Insurrection Is Worse Than You Think," "what all this amounts to is an attempted takeover of the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch — a judicial coup d’état," Davidson added:

These judges are usurping President Trump’s valid exercise of his Executive Branch powers through sheer judicial fiat — a raw assertion of power by one branch of the federal government against another.

But on another, deeper level, this is an attempt by the judiciary to prevent the duly elected president from reclaiming control of the Executive Branch from the federal bureaucracy — the deep state, which has long functioned as an unelected and unaccountable fourth branch of the government. 

This unconstitutional fourth branch has always been controlled by Democrats and leftist ideologues who, under the guise of being nonpartisan experts neutrally administering the functions of government, have effectively supplanted the political branches. 

Too strong, far-right, or whatever? In this case, I write, you decide.

RELATED: It's Past Time We Take a Long Hard Look at the Notion of Sacrosanct Judicial Supremacy

Déjà vu All Over Again: ANOTHER Federal Judge Tries to Thwart Trump Agenda, Goes to Bat for USAID

So, let's go back to the "insurrection" issue. As defined by FindLaw Legal Dictionary, an insurrection is:

"The act or an instance of revolting, especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government," or "the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion] against the authority of the United States.

Whether "judicial activism," legislating from the bench," or "judicial insurrection," the bottom line is it makes zero difference whatever label one slaps on the federal judiciary's continuing efforts to thwart Trump.

The other bottom line — and a far more important one — is when the judiciary thwarts Trump (other than for obvious executive overreach), it also thwarts the will of a majority of the American people, who, in November, gave Trump a decisive victory for two paramount reasons:

First, because of the promises Trump made to undo as much as he could after four years of destruction under the Biden-Harris regime — including ending the madness intentionally created by the Biden Border Crisis.

Second, Trump vowed to 'fix" the "broken" federal government," by reducing spending, streamlining (or working to eliminate) government departments and agencies, and eliminating fraud and waste.

Both of those reasons are anathema to the left, including the Democrat Party and its media lapdogs. 

Ominously, it now appears that leftist judges are hopping aboard that troubling bus.