It certainly seems as though the executive and the judiciary are on a collision course with the multitude of court cases filed against the Trump administration in an effort to halt its attempts to streamline the federal bureaucracy and implement President Donald Trump's America First agenda. We've seen ruling after ruling from the district courts (and a few from the circuit courts of appeals) that seem to be the result of "Trump Bad" analysis rather than objective legal reasoning.
And, of course, as the legacy media covers these ongoing legal battles, they are framed as a "constitutional crisis" with the implication that Trump is just millimeters away from going full fascist dictator and defying the courts, thus pushing the country over the edge.
There's just one problem with that framing, however: Trump isn't doing that.
It's Past Time We Take a Long Hard Look at the Notion of Sacrosanct Judicial Supremacy
Which isn't to say that he and his administration aren't pushing the envelope of executive power — they are in several ways. But they're also doing so in a way that allows the process to play out through the courts, and my belief is that, in the long run, this will produce a clearer delineation (and even limitation) of the scope of executive authority — as well as that of the other branches. In other words, if one can grit the teeth and hang on a bit for the bumpy ride, we may well come out the other side with a slimmer, trimmer, decently functioning federal government rather than the bloated behemoth we've been saddled with now for decades.
Okay, maybe I'm being overly optimistic about that — but I'm not the only one. Listen to what President Trump had to say in his interview with Laura Ingraham Tuesday evening:
On the @IngrahamAngle, President Trump says of Judge Boasberg:
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 18, 2025
"He's radical left." pic.twitter.com/D68JibG3Ti
INGRAHAM: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issued a "rare" statement about your suggestion on Truth that you posted earlier today that Judge James Boasberg should be impeached after he ordered those deportation flights to El Salvador halted — essentially turned around. The Chief Justice said more than two centuries...we understood that, essentially, impeachment was for very rare circumstances and not an appropriate response to rulings you disagree with. What's your reaction to the court's stepping in to make a statement here? They didn't make a statement when Joe Biden decided to forgive all those student loans despite what the court said —
TRUMP: Well, he didn't mention my name in the statement — I just saw it quickly — he didn't mention my name. But many people have called for his impeachment — the impeachment of this judge. I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left; he was Obama-appointed. And he actually said we shouldn't be able to take criminals, killers, murderers, horrible — the worst people, gang members, gang leaders — that we shouldn't be allowed to take them out of our country. Well, that's a presidential job; that's not for a local judge to be making that determination. And I thought it was terrible. In fact, he said, when they were well on their way, he — there was an order issued, as I understand it, to bring them back, or to not let them go, or something. And this is not something that the country would stand for. These people — they were let in here by an incompetent president who had open borders, and anybody throughout the world could come in, and we were given murderers, we were given people from mental institutions and prisons...
Ingraham followed up with the question that seems to be at the heart of the left's reaction to the court battles over the administration's actions:
Laura Ingraham asks President Trump if we would ever defy a court order.
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 18, 2025
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "I never did defy a court order. No, you can't do that. However, we have bad judges... I think at a certain point you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge?" pic.twitter.com/1mZShw9YwL
INGRAHAM: But going forward...would you defy a court order? Because...we all know that was out —
TRUMP: No, I never did defy a court order.
INGRAHAM: And you wouldn't in the future?
TRUMP: No. You can't do that. However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed...I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at: What do you do when you have a rogue judge?
Ingraham pointed to the fact that the appellate process takes time and concerns that the administration may not have that kind of time to enact its America First agenda, but Trump remains sanguine about that.
Despite all of the frivolous lawsuits against the Trump administration, the president remains optimistic, saying he still has time to appeal and enact his agenda. pic.twitter.com/3dxcu7KPIU
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 18, 2025
INGRAHAM: Well, do you believe that, at this point, given the totality of these lawsuits — it's a cavalcade of lawsuits — that your administration could be further hampered, your agenda could be slowed down...they're throwing monkey wrenches at you with these judicial rulings —
TRUMP: Well, we have to go through an appellate process — that takes a long time. We have a judge that —
INGRAHAM: Do you have time?
TRUMP: We have a judge —
INGRAHAM: That's the point.
TRUMP: We have time.
If he's supposed to be fascist-ing and dictator-ing, he's doing a rather poor job of it, I'd say.
Which ties in to an observation I happened to see on X Wednesday morning:
From a friend: "It’s hard to tell whether the principal purpose of Lawfare 2.0 is (1) to stop Trump from doing stuff or (2) to goad him into saying he won’t follow court orders (so that they can say he’s a dictator, and potentially turn the Congress and the Supreme Court against…
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 19, 2025
From a friend: "It’s hard to tell whether the principal purpose of Lawfare 2.0 is (1) to stop Trump from doing stuff or (2) to goad him into saying he won’t follow court orders (so that they can say he’s a dictator, and potentially turn the Congress and the Supreme Court against him; so far, Congress has been helpful by the narrowest of margins and the Supreme Court has been slow but not hostile). Conservatives need to realize that Trump is playing it smart by avoiding direct confrontation. By the end of the year, he’ll get 90% of what he wants through the budgetary or appellate process."
I'm neither a mind reader nor a soothsayer, but that is the sense I'm getting on the situation, as well. Trump may grouse about some of the judges and/or their rulings, but he's content to let the process play out — and he has some degree of confidence that it will do so in his favor.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member