During President Donald Trump’s first days in office, radical activist left-wing judges are doing all they can to stop his efforts to help the American people.
So far this year, President Trump has faced 125 legal challenges in just two months.
On Saturday, a radical leftist judge attempted to disrupt the President’s mission to secure the border by issuing a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration from deporting thousands of Venezuelan nationals, including dangerous gang members, under the Alien Enemies Act.
On Thursday, a federal judge ordered the Trump Administration to rehire approximately 20,000 probationary workers across 18 different agencies.
And the list goes on.
Historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich joined ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ to discuss the concerning efforts by judges to negate President Trump’s agenda and usurp the American people who made their desires clear at the ballot box in November.
Mark Levin: It’s propitious that we have our friend, former speaker, Newt Gingrich, with us because he’s more than a former speaker. He’s a philosopher, he’s a historian, and he’s a thinker. And he’s written about in the past this whole issue of judicial tyranny.
Newt Gingrich, tyranny takes many forms, as you know. It can be a single dictator. It can be the tyranny of the legislature. It can be tyranny of the judiciary.
And I know our Democrat friends who are, in many respects, the party of tyranny.
They just want power, and they want it any way they can get it. And so they ran through these district court colonies when they have a majority because they’re radical, because they don’t respect separation of powers.
A few years back, you did a white paper on this. You had some very important, I think, ideas on how to rein in and out of control federal judiciary. Can you share some of that with us?
Newt Gingrich: Sure. I think you have to start with two realities from the revolutionary period. The first was that after no taxation without representation. Excuse me. The number one issue was judges. Jefferson and others clearly believed that the royalist judges were there to implement the will of the king not to provide justice. And so there was a very deep hostility to the idea of the judges being able to lord it over everyday folks.
And in fact, if you read the Federalist Papers, which are the primary introduction to what does the Constitution mean, they make it very clear.
They believe the legislative branch and the executive branch are much more powerful than the judicial for a practical reason. The Congress and the President together can simply abolish judges. It’s only with Marbury versus Madison, which is totally dishonest in how it’s currently portrayed.
In Marbury versus Jefferson, Marshall understands that if he doesn’t go down a very careful line, Jefferson will abolish the court. And so he has a very convoluted reasoning that he knows will make Jefferson relatively happy while asserting that the court can make this decision.
Lawyers ever since have dramatically expanded the meaning of Marbury v. Madison, and have ignored the reality that the judicial acts of 1801 and 1802 indicated total dominance of the legislative and executive branches over the courts because they can abolish them.
So you start from that background, and you realize that where we are today is that the last castle of left-wing nutism are these district judges and one or two Supreme Court judges, and that what they’re doing is a fundamental assault on the constitutional order.
Watch:
