GOP Bill Takes Aim at Rogue Judges Blocking Trump's Policies

🚨🇺🇸 GOP BILL TAKES AIM AT “ROGUE” JUDGES BLOCKING TRUMP’S POLICIES

Rep Darrell Issa has introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) to stop federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that derail a president’s agenda.

Instead, rulings would only apply to the parties in… https://t.co/jtpm4gc3lT pic.twitter.com/qlWxWFyJu0
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 25, 2025

Rep Darrell Issa has introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) to stop federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that derail a president’s agenda.

Instead, rulings would only apply to the parties in the case—no more one-judge veto power over the White House.

Trump’s policies have been hit with over 50 lawsuits challenging more than 60 executive actions.

Issa:

"The founders could never have envisioned judges and part of the legislative branch teaming up to tie down the executive and disempower the people.

The current judge-shopping climate in the United States amounts to judicial tyranny and a weaponization of courts."

The bill has strong GOP backing and is expected to pass and land on Trump’s desk.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt:

"We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law and they have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits.

This is part of a larger concerted effort by Democrat activists, and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump."

Looks like Issa and Trump are done letting judges play king.

Judicial judgments, orders, and findings only apply to the case in law before the court... Constitutional issues are excepted... it is up to Congress to act on the court findings where unconstitutional law is involved... relief is given only to the parties bringing the case and ...unless, and until, Congress acts in agreement with the court to amend or repeal the law as needed... too, repair the laws Constitutional issue(s)... the law remains as Congress originally passed it.

Future appeals for relief from unconstitutional issues must be brought case by case to receive relief... Congress is derelict if it fails to provide general relief by correcting the constitutional breach in the law. Congress may also DISAGREE with the court's findings... leaving the law as written. The courts are not the final word on constitutional law...

The Congress and PEOPLE (JURIES) are the final arbiters of the law... of course, the pettifoggers would not agree... as their power as the final arbiters of the law is tantamount to their supremecy in the law.

Replies

Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired February 26, 2025 at 12:31pm

Judicial judgments, orders, and findings only apply to the case in law before the court... Constitutional issues are excepted... it is up to Congress to act on the court findings where unconstitutional law is involved... relief is given only to the parties bringing the case and ...unless, and until, Congress acts in agreement with the court to amend or repeal the law as needed... too, repair the laws Constitutional issue(s)... the law remains as Congress originally passed it.

Future appeals for relief from unconstitutional issues must be brought case by case to receive relief... Congress is derelict if it fails to provide general relief by correcting the constitutional breach in the law. Congress may also DISAGREE with the court's findings... leaving the law as written. The courts are not the final word on constitutional law...

The Congress and PEOPLE (JURIES) are the final arbiters of the law... of course, the pettifoggers would not agree... as their power as the final arbiters of the law is tantamount to their supremecy in the law.
Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired February 26, 2025 at 12:01pm

Judges serve AS LONG as they operate within moral and lawful limits... Good Behavior. See Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

The President appoints judges and is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Government... (See Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 US Constitution) and is also the Nation's Chief Constitutional Law Enforcement Officer, (See Article 2, Section 3 US Constitution). Acting within the authority of these Constitutional offices he may REMOVE a Judge for Bad Behavior... Activist judges can be fired by the President.

The removal of Judges by a president's order is part of the CHECKS AND BALANCES that are part of our Constitution and democratic Republic. Pres. Lincoln arrested and removed a Supreme Court Justice... setting a precedent for the future if the need arises to do the same.
Jea9 February 26, 2025 at 11:41am

They possess NO powers to legislate and NO powers to execute. Any opinion they write at any level--including Scotus, must go either to POTUS or Congress for implementation. Professing themselves wise they became fools.Yes, they must be disbarred, removed and arrested for violation of Oath and Duty to uphold the United States Constitution.

I look forward to that day.
- Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired > Jea9 February 26, 2025 at 12:04pm
  
  The President may terminate a judge's tenure by Executive Order and Congress may remove a judge by Impeachment... those are the two ways judges can be removed.
- Jea9 > Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired February 26, 2025 at 12:09pm
  
  I didn't know that about EO. Thanks!
ilona Trommler February 26, 2025 at 8:25am

Not enough....they must be disbarred!

This reply was deleted.