Vincent Cavaleri, director of education for the Silent Majority Foundation, believes ‘we stand on a precipice, teetering between governance by the people and governance by judicial decree’
Vincent Cavaleri, director of education
Silent Majority Foundation
Imagine if you will, a scenario where an elected body, comprised of individuals chosen by the very people they represent, grappling with crucial legislation aimed at addressing pressing social issues. The voices of the constituents echoing loudly with each day that passes, demanding action, urging their representatives to fulfill the promises made on the campaign trail.
And then, just as the momentum for action builds and reaches its crescendo, a gavel from a distant judge comes crashing down, silencing the collective voice of democracy with a single decree. Welcome to the reality of judicial tyranny, where unelected judges, often appointed through political subterfuge, wield political power over the lives and futures of free people, supplanting the elected body.
These are not your run of the mill jurists trying to ensure fairness and justice; no, they are self-appointed arbiters of social change, donning robes supposedly stitched from the fabric of impartiality. Tyrannical governments rely on legislating from the bench to effectively euthanize the will of the people, despite a contradictory constitution, or governing document. The specter of judicial overreach is not merely a concern for the ordinary citizen, it’s a dark omen that threatens to asphyxiate the very essence of democratic representation.
Activist judges are nothing new and often fly under the radar, manipulating interpretations of law to reshape outcomes rather than elucidating America’s constitution. The realities of judicial overreach are well documented and undeniable, which leads us to a terrifying realization; our justice system can be bent to the whims of a few radicalized robes, all while masquerading as custodians of democracy.
To ignore the implications of unchecked judicial power is to flirt with the notion that our elected representatives are merely judicial puppets. When judges take it upon themselves to decide what is best for society, rather than allowing the democratically elected officials to legislate according to the needs and desires of the constituency, we start pivoting towards tyranny of the judiciary, which is a direct assault on the principles of self-governance.
Consider the chilling effects in recent memory. On January 28, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan, appointed to the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia, a Joe Biden appointee, blocked the Trump administration from implementing a pause on federal funding while it reviewed many of USAIDs programs legitimacy. She effectively usurped the lawmaking branches of government regarding federal funding and spending of tax-payer dollars, without any constitutional or foundational authority. Paul Engelmayer, a Barrack Obama appointee in the Southern District of New York. He issued an injunction blocking Elon Musk, who by the way has the highest possible security clearance given to him by the President of the United States; from accessing Treasury Department Records, despite being invited to do so by the current Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant.
Amy Berman Jackson, another Obama appointee currently a sitting U.S. District Court Judge in the District of Columbia, her claim to fame is presiding over several “Russia collusion” investigations, including the prosecutions of Trump associates Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. Her latest perversion on the bench was to reinstate a man by the name of Hampton Dellinger of the Office of Special Council, who was recently fired by the President of the United States. Apparently Judge Jackson believes she now oversees the hiring and firing of the federal appointees.
These actions, among many other judicial overreach examples reek of paternalism, as judges are making legal decisions based on their own personal bias rather than constitutional law, utilizing “judicial discretion.” Just as a well-functioning government relies on checks and balances, so too does the judiciary need limits on its reach. Otherwise, we risk creating an environment where the judiciary operates as a de facto monarchy.
So, what can be done? First, citizens must awaken to the reality that their voices are at risk of being silenced by the unelected. There’s an urgent need for accountability in the judiciary to ensure that the court system does not grow into an entity above reproach. Of America’s three branches of government, the judiciary is the only one not requiring elections to hold or retain office. It’s imperative that we advocate for judicial reform or term limits, except for the Supreme Court of course.
We stand on a precipice, teetering between governance by the people and governance by judicial decree. There’s an urgent need for transparency and accountability in the judiciary. The will of the people deserves to be honored and respected, not obscured by the robes of those who believe they know better; one that dismisses the will of the people with the stroke of a pen. We must act or face a future where our elected bodies are rendered irrelevant in the face of judicial absolutism.
Also read:
- Letter: Vancouver needs broader leadership than just a teacher’s lens
Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi urges Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle not to seek another term, calling for more diverse and inclusive leadership rooted in broader experiences. - Opinion: Legislative session ‘was full of ups and downs and many learning experiences’Rep. John Ley reflects on the 2025 legislative session, highlighting local funding victories and warning of major tax increases passed by the majority.
- Opinion: Washington state Legislature 2025: That’s a wrap
Elizabeth New (Hovde) of the Washington Policy Center breaks down the highlights and lowlights of Washington’s 2025 legislative session, warning of rising taxes and new mandates. - Opinion: Washington state lawmakers increase the cost of driving – againBob Pishue of Mountain States Policy Center argues that new vehicle and fuel taxes in Washington will raise driving costs while diverting funds away from roads.
- POLL: Should Vancouver keep clearing homeless camps every two weeks?Clark County Today is asking readers to weigh in on whether Vancouver should continue clearing homeless camps every two weeks.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once said, “An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don’t like.” His definition was offered tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheless reflects a real challenge to your opinion here, Mr. Cavaleri.
The long-established function of the judicial branch at the Federal level is to protect the primacy of law as the basis of our civil society. In a practical sense, the judiciary serves as a check on the power of the other two branches, preventing the President and the Congress from simply interpreting or reinterpreting statute to meet their own individual goals.
Each of your three examples, far from being examples of “activism,” are actually necessary protections of our system of laws – each preventing particularly egregious examples of overreach by the executive branch. Briefly:
On 20-January, the Trump administration issued an executive order freezing all foreign assistance funding. Those funds were appropriated by Congress and their expenditure is directed by US law. As Judge AliKhan writes in her decision, “The constitutional power over whether to spend foreign aid is not the President’s own — and it is Congress’s own.” Mr. Trump is certainly free to ask Congress to vote to change those expenditures, but cannot simply choose to do it at his own whims.
Similarly, the injunction blocking Mr. Musk from accessing the Treasury is both appropriate and consistent with US law. Here again, US law explicitly describes the processes by which a person may be granted clearance to access sensitive information (specifically in 5 USC 551, the “Administrative Procedure Act”). Scott Bessant does not hold unilateral authority to grant a person access to all of our personal tax information.
Again, we see that this ruling is far from “activist” – it is upholding the Constitutional separation of powers. The President is bound by Article II Section 3 to, “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and cannot ignore statutes that Congress has enacted. Critically, the ruling does not prevent Mr. Musk from gaining those clearances. It simply mandates that he follow the rules and actually get them as required by US law.
The Dellinger case is a similar example of the Trump administration attempting to overstep their Constitutional guardrails and ignore US Code. Specifically, 5 USC 1211 (b) states that a Special Counsel may only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The Administration terminated Mr. Dellinger without cause. If that termination had included even the barest of nods to the criteria required by law, the suit would never had made it past initial review.
It is critical to note that none of these cases prevent the Executive from taking the actions it wants to take – they simply require those actions to follow existing law. I’m not sure why you find that objectionable. Every person in our country, even (and I would argue, especially) the President, are required to abide by the rule of law. For you to suggest that equally applying that rule is somehow, “activist” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitution is written.
I don’t want to live in a country where the chief Executive can arbitrarily decide which rules to follow and which to discard. Neither do you.
Webster’s Dictionary defines Treason as “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance”
How is what these activist judges are doing anything less than Treason?
There are at least two very good reasons:
First, because a judge taking action to compel another person to follow the law is almost the exact opposite of “overthrowing the government.” As noted in my other comment, each legal decision highlighted by Mr. Cavaleri is one in which the judge said, in effect, “you need to follow the law as it is written.”
They didn’t even say, “you can’t do this at all” just “you have to do it the right way.” That’s quite literally the primary job of the judicial branch.
Second, because Webster’s definition isn’t the legal definition of treason in the US. That definition is found in Article III Section 3 of the Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
None of these decisions even remotely approach that standard. There’s a reason why there have been so few charges of treason throughout US history – it’s a very limited and very serious charge, not the sort of thing that should be thrown around for temporary injunctions.