Congress urged to step up against unruly courts

Friday, February 17, 2017
Chad Groening (

U.S. Capitol 2A pro-family activist and columnist says Congress should be prepared to step in and flex its constitutional muscles if Democrats continue to tie up the Trump administration with legal challenges.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the decision of a federal judge in Washington to overturn President Trump's executive order aimed at temporarily halting immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries – countries that had already been identified by the Obama administration as hotbeds of terrorism.

Those court decisions and other developments have emboldened left-leaning groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. In fact, the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, recently boasted that his organization intends to "carpet-bomb" the Trump administration with lawsuits – the objective being to "rob it of momentum and gum up the machinery" to slow its agenda.

Robert Knight, a senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, is among conservatives who argue it's time for Congress to utilize its constitutionally granted authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal and state courts.

Robert Knight"The Constitution stipulates that of the courts created by Congress, which is all courts except the Supreme Court, Congress may limit their jurisdiction," he tells OneNewsNow – adding: "That's called court-stripping."

Articles I and III of the Constitution address that congressional authority – also known as "curtailment of jurisdiction" – to define the jurisdiction of the judiciary. But Congress, according to Knight, is usually reluctant to exercise that particular authority over the courts.

"... Because a lot of people in Congress frankly want to be considered some day for high court positions if they leave Congress," he continues. "That's my read on it – but they should have done this years ago."

And Knight says Congress must have the courage to take other measures to deal with rogue judges.

"One [step] is impeaching judges. Many judges should have been impeached by now because they've exceeded their authority," he explains. "The other is to strip them of their economy – that is, they could take away their funding."

Knight remains encouraged that Trump may be able to blunt judicial activism by filling a large number of federal judicial vacancies with jurists who base their rulings on the Constitution – not on liberal political activism.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details




How would you describe Obama's last-minute rule preventing abortion-providers from being denied federal funding?





Could 'Nexit' follow Brexit after Dutch elections?
Iraqi forces advance on Islamic State-held western Mosul
Malaysia looks for 4 North Korean suspects who left country
US vice president visits former Nazi concentration camp
Last-2nd launch delay for SpaceX at historic moon pad
Silver: NBA will keep eye on state's inclusion policies
Arpaio successor pulls back on immigration holds in jails
DC Council chair: Council to revisit paid family leave bill


Priebus: NY Times 'fake news'
Christian's Muslim attackers 'tormented by visions of blood'
McCain defends the media in NBC interview
Leftists, Establishment conservatives freak out over MILO CPAC speech
Bolton emerging as frontrunner to replace Flynn


Cartoon of the Day


O’Reilly: Wash. florist SSM case could go to SCOTUS

U.S. Supreme CourtIn the wake of the Washington State Supreme Court ruling against a Christian florist who would not to serve a same-sex “wedding” because such unions go against her deeply held religious beliefs, a debate is continuing to brew between conservative Christian leaders and top Democrats on the controversial matter – a matter that could very likely go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), according to a statement posted by The O’Reilly Factor.