Primer on judges violating Separation of Powers

Many such as myself have wondered about all of the injunctions filed against actions put forth by President Trump....as President....the stuff presidents are charged with doing, to make for a better America. The news is full of judges who are impeding his work. These are interesting points of view. Surely you can gloss over this with an open mind and come to your own conclusions.


""The claim that judges violate the separation of powers is a complex one, with arguments stemming from concerns about judicial overreach and potential encroachment on the legislative and executive branches' authority, but also from the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution and ensuring accountability.
Here's a breakdown of the arguments and counterarguments:
Arguments suggesting judges violate the separation of powers:
Judicial Overreach:
Some argue that judges, particularly in interpreting laws and the Constitution, can overstep their authority by making policy decisions that should be left to the elected branches.
Judicial Activism:
Critics accuse judges of "judicial activism," where they actively shape policy through their decisions, rather than simply applying the law as written.
Judicial Review:
The power of judicial review, where courts can declare laws unconstitutional, is seen by some as a potential threat to the legislative branch's authority to make laws.
Delegation of Legislative Power:
Some argue that when courts allow the executive branch to make laws through regulations, they are violating the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to make laws rather than the legislative branch.
Counterarguments and justifications for judicial independence:
Judicial Independence:
The judiciary is designed to be independent from the other branches, ensuring that judges can make impartial decisions without undue influence.
Checks and Balances:
The separation of powers is designed to create a system of checks and balances, where each branch can limit the power of the other branches.
Upholding the Constitution:
The judiciary's role is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, which includes ensuring that laws are constitutional and that the government is acting within its powers.
Judicial Review:
Judicial review is a crucial mechanism for ensuring that laws are constitutional and that the government is accountable to the people.
Protection of Individual Rights:
The judiciary plays a vital role in protecting individual rights and liberties, which can sometimes require challenging actions by the other branches.
Examples of potential separation of powers issues involving the judiciary:
Judicial Review of Executive Orders:
Courts have sometimes ruled that executive orders violate the separation of powers by encroaching on legislative or judicial authority.
Judicial Interpretation of Statutes:
The way courts interpret statutes can have a significant impact on policy, leading to concerns about judicial overreach.
Judicial Decisions on Political Questions:
Some argue that courts should not be involved in resolving political questions, as these are best left to the elected branches.
In conclusion:
The question of whether judges violate the separation of powers is a complex one with valid arguments on both sides. While some argue that judges overstep their authority, others argue that the judiciary is essential for upholding the Constitution and protecting individual rights. The key is to strike a balance between judicial independence and the need for checks and balances within the government""""""

@AverageJoe1
What exactly is unclear about that text?

SECTION. 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

@Ponderable said
@AverageJoe1
What exactly is unclear about that text?

SECTION. 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Checks and balance should go both ways.
Are we supposed to pretend these judges are selected at random as is the rule?

@Ponderable said
Quis custodiet custodes?

For prectical purposes the Supreme court is the final arbiter and the decisions of that couirt are binding and should be consequent in all aspects.

To claim that the president ahs no limut is plain wrong he has sworn to uphold the constitution (and that infers all law that is in effect). If the law is broken, the president (or his appointed o ...[text shortened]... nstance the Supreme Court will decide if laws have been broken or not.

So lets wait a few months.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Why do you ignore what I said about fed judges being selected at random?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Why do you ignore what I said about fed judges being selected at random?

@Ponderable said
Quis custodiet custodes?

For prectical purposes the Supreme court is the final arbiter and the decisions of that couirt are binding and should be consequent in all aspects.

To claim that the president ahs no limut is plain wrong he has sworn to uphold the constitution (and that infers all law that is in effect). If the law is broken, the president (or his appointed o ...[text shortened]... nstance the Supreme Court will decide if laws have been broken or not.

So lets wait a few months.

@KingDavid403 said
So what's your point loser?
"As of March 19, 2025, the United States Senate has confirmed 234 Article III judges nominated by Trump: three associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 54 judges for the United States courts of appeals, 174 judges for the United States district courts, and three judges for the United States Court."
You better come up w ...[text shortened]... er lie than that loser; you and your wife little joe boy. What a couple of worthless to God idiots.

@Ponderable said
In fact it is a problem to select judges. They are of course not selected at random. There are criteria on the eligibility to courts. And there is a process in place.

If politics determines the selection of judges then of course the courts represent to some extemt the interests of the electors.

@Mott-The-Hoople

So you wrote:

Why do you ignore what I said about fed judges being selected at random?

@Ponderable said
@Mott-The-Hoople

So you wrote:

Why do you ignore what I said about fed judges being selected at random?

I understood that as the persons being judges are randomly selected.

Now you refer to the distribution od cases, which is a different thing.

Lying, as I explained numerous times, is intentionally saying the untruth.
Erring is something different ...