The angry Alt-Left will use “judge-shopping” to try and stop Trump’s agenda

With Democrats in the minority everywhere – in state legislatures, governor’s mansions, and in Congress – there is little they can do politically to stop President Donald J. Trump and the Republican majority, as well as GOP-held state capitols throughout the country.

Thus far, the majority of political progress made since Trump has taken office has been through his use of executive orders, and there isn’t much Alt-Left Democrats can do to intervene.

Unless, of course, they take the administration to court. And that is precisely what Democrats plan to do, because it is just about the only recourse they have left, as we are witnessing with the White House’s first major court battle – a challenge to Trump’s executive order banning travel to the U.S. for 90 days to anyone from seven countries known to sponsor or harbor terrorist elements. (RELATED: Find out how conservatives plan to stop the liberal onslaught at

Liberals plan to do this using a technique known as judge-shopping. Here’s how it works: Liberals who are opposed to a specific Trump policy file suit against it in a federal court where they know a judge is ideologically sympathetic to their argument. That’s what happened in the case of Trump’s travel ban; liberals found a judge they believed would side with them in a circuit – the 9th Circuit – comprised of the most judges appointed by liberal presidents.

As of this writing, an appeals panel of the 9th Circuit is scheduled to hear the government’s challenge to the lower court’s stay of Trump’s order, and it’s expected that the three-judge panel will likely keep the Judge James L. Robart’s blocking of Trump’s order intact.

But that was the point to begin with; attorneys general for the states of Washington and Minnesota, the primary challengers to the travel ban, along with Left-wing legal organizations like the ACLU, knew exactly where they were going to file their case, and in whose court. Consider: Minnesota is in the 6th Circuit Court’s jurisdiction; how did its case wind up in the 9th Circuit? Because it was intentionally filed there. If plaintiffs thought they’d stand a better chance in the 6th Circuit, the case would have been filed there instead.

As reported by The Daily Signal, this tactic will be repeated throughout Trump’s presidency:

Federal judges should by no means be immune from criticism, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He believes Robart, the Seattle judge, issued a ruling outside the law.

“Judges should not be criticized for fulfilling their constitutional role, but if a judge oversteps that constitutional role and acts as a super legislator, then that judge’s reasoning should be criticized,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. 

Litigation and “judge shopping” will likely continue throughout the administration as a means to stop Trump’s agenda, von Spakovsky predicted.

Following Robart’s ruling, Trump tweeted out his disdain, calling him a “so-called judge” and claiming that he has the constitution and statutory authority as president to issue the order he did, under the guise of improving national security. A sober reading of the statute – which President Obama based many of his executive actions upon – makes that clear.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D- N.Y., took Trump to task for it, claiming the president has a “disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn’t always bend to his wishes.” What’s most absurd about Schumer’s statement is not Trump’s criticism of Robart – Obama criticized the entire Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union Address – but rather it was his assertion that the Judicial Branch is “independent.” (RELATED: How is the Alt-Left threatening your freedoms today? Learn more at

Presidents nominate judges and Supreme Court justices they believe share the same political ideology. Yes, the Judicial Branch is supposed to be independent – and it is, insofar as that goes. But clearly since presidents seek to appoint jurists to the federal bench who have distinct Left-leaning or Right-leaning political beliefs, then the courts become packed with ideologues, not judges and justices who are supposed to rely on the Constitution and statutory law when issuing rulings.

The result? Judge shopping; the rule of law and the Constitution take a back seat to political considerations.

It would be nice to say that Robart’s ruling will eventually be overturned when it gets to the Supreme Court (because that’s where it’s headed). But there’s no guarantee; half the justices are considered liberal, the other half constitutional conservatives. The ninth seat remains vacant.

Meanwhile, the country is being put at risk of terrorist infiltration, as the Left seeks to use the only tool it has left – certain federal courts – to get its way.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.


comments powered by Disqus