The following three rulings have been handed down since Wednesday…

A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that Deutsche Bank and Capital One may provide President Trump’s financial records to House Democratic lawmakers after the administration attempted to block the move.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, an Obama appointee, made the ruling    in a New York courthouse Wednesday afternoon after hearing arguments from both parties in the case.

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked Mississippi from moving ahead with a so-called “heartbeat” abortion law that bans the procedure after a cardiac activity is first detected, which occurs at around six weeks of pregnancy.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves stops the order from taking effect July 1.

“Here we go again,” Reeves wrote. “Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability.”

Reeves also struck down a 2018 Mississippi law that banned abortion at 15 weeks. The state is appealing that ruling.

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to spend billions to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border with Defense Department funds.

U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s ruling applies to wall construction in specific areas in El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona. Trump declared a national emergency in February to redirect funding from the Department of Defense to begin construction of his long-promised border wall.

“In short, the position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds “without Congress” does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” wrote Gilliam, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama.

All three of these federal judges have something in common: they were all three appointed to the bench by Former President Barack Hussein Obama.

Coincidence? Hardly.

For years now, Democrat Politicians and the Liberal Special Interest Groups who donate to their campaigns have used America’s Legal System to overthrow the will of the majority of Americans.

In fact, they have made an art form out of it.

However, the focus of these rulings made by Obama appointees is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

Rather, these activist judges, just as was done when Trump announced his “Travel Ban” designed to stem the flow of Radical Islamists into our Sovereign Nation, seek to “neuter” President Trump and render him and Conservative Governors, like Mississippi’s Phil Bryant powerless to accomplish the wishes of those who put them in political office.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, would be to sabotage a president and State Governors trying to legislate according to the wishes of the majority of American Citizens?

The great American Economist and Conservative Pundit (who just happens to be Black) Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following in a paper on the subject of Judicial Activism:

The claim that judicial activism is necessary to rescue us from bondage to the past– from having the writers of the Constitution “rule us from the grave”– defies both logic and history. There is no contest between the living and the dead. The contest is between those living individuals who wish to see control of change in judicial hands and those who wish to see it in other hands. There has been no argument that either statutory or constitutional laws are not to change. The only meaningful question is: Who is to change them? The reiterated emphasis on change, like the reiterated emphasis on morality, argues what is not at issue and glides over what is crucially at issue: Why are judges the authorized instrument? The original cognitive meaning of laws– constitutional or statutory– is important, not out of deference to the dead, but because that is the agreed‑upon meaning among the living, until they choose to make an open and explicit change– not have one foisted on them by the verbal sleight-of‑hand of judges.

Existing social philosophies and political alignments cannot be presupposed in discussions of long-run questions, such as constitutional interpretation. Even within the judiciary, differences in “substantive values” have been drastic over time, and by no means negligible even at a given time. The belief that a constitutional structure can be maintained while jurists with radically different visions make “substantive choices” within it seems dangerously similar to a belief that one can slide half-way down a slippery slope. The argument for judicial activism must stand or fall in general and enduring terms, not simply on whether some current political or social creed is considered so superior to competing creeds as to justify judges’ decisions in its favor. It is ultimately not a question of the relative merits of particular political or social creeds but of the long-run consequences of opening the floodgates to the generic principle of constitutional decisions based on “substantive values.” Once you have opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.

What must be rejected is precisely the general principle that judges’ “substantive values” should govern constitutional decisions. Nor is anything fundamentally changed by saying that judges are only agents of general moral ideas, rather than their own personal inclinations.

From the beginning of Trump’s presidency, the Democrats and their Special Interest Groups have attempted to thwart his plans to fulfill his Campaign Promises by seeking out sympathetic Liberal Activist Judges who would rule in their favor.

The Founding Fathers never meant for Americans to be ruled by the Judiciary.

That is why they created three distinct Branches of Government with their own fields of authority.

The Judicial and Legislative Branches were not created to steer the Ship of State.

The Executive Branch is responsible for the leadership of our Sovereign Nation.

Elections have consequences.

The Democrats keep on showing the American People exactly who they really are: a bunch of sore losers embracing relative morality and situational ethics.

And, it needs to end.

Until He Comes,

KJ