My first reaction when I heard about the so-called compromise on border wall funding was that the president should reject it. I had three reasons.
First, I want border security fully funded. Even the president’s request for 5.7 billion did not accomplish that, let alone the “compromise” figure of 1.4 billion. And second, I thought accepting the compromise would anger the president’s base, and I did not want to see him politically weakened.
But my most important reason was the third: I thought that if President Donald Trump accepted this compromise a liberal judge would claim it was an admission by the president that only Congress can fund border security.
I was afraid that a liberal judge would use this admission as a basis to rule against the president’s ability to declare a national emergency — or otherwise order border security improvements — unless he uses funds that were specifically allocated by the Congress.
I am still worried about all three of these very serious outcomes, but I am also worried about a fourth outcome if the president rejects the compromise: A Republican Civil War resulting in the Senate freezing the president’s ability to get his judges confirmed.
The Senate clearly supports this deal. Too many senators are beholden to big business interests who oppose border security and if we fight them while we only hold a 53 – 47 majority the president may get very few of his judicial nominees confirmed.
Also, opposing the “compromise” could anger Mitch McConnell and motivate him to continue to stall confirmations, which he is already doing big time. Between Oct. 12, 2018, and Feb. 13, 2019, McConnell’s Senate has confirmed exactly one of the president’s circuit court nominees.
That’s right, exactly one, despite that fact that about a dozen have been awaiting confirmation, some for almost a year, since April of 2018.
And that’s just circuit court nominees. Over 45 district court nominees have also not been confirmed. This brings the total number of unconfirmed judicial nominees to almost 60. In my opinion, getting McConnell to push these confirmations is the most important task on the president’s desk right now. It is even more important than getting more border security money from this Congress.
Why? Here’s why: Because it will be judges who tell you HOW border security money can be spent. A cockamamie judge could even rule that the money can’t be spent on a wall because walls are “unconstitutional.” Don’t put it past them. They are power hungry and they love the praise mainstream media heaps upon them when they “discover” new constitutional theories that further liberal causes.
That is why the most important goal this president has is to restore judicial sanity. Judges decide everything nowadays, and I do mean everything. They decide when a baker has to bake a cake, when a visa permitting entry into the U.S. has to be issued, when a man can use a girls’ bathroom, and when an illegal alien without a photo ID must be allowed to vote.
The judges have stolen this power from a passive and weak Congress that is scared of mainstream media criticism — and they have also stolen power from unimaginative presidents who cannot figure out how to stop them, even in the rare instances when they actually want to.
The result has been a judicial tyranny that must be stopped. Otherwise, the American experiment is over. Kaput. Done for. That is much more important, in the long run than getting 4 billion more from this particular Congress — especially if a judge tells you how the 4 billion can be spent.
So my conclusion is this: The president may be forced to endorse this compromise. This is very painful and debilitating, but it may be political chemotherapy. It may be required so we can kill the cancer of judicial tyranny.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.