Republicans are considering several bills to rein in the out-of-control judges who now run the US government.
On Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) noted that Congress has power over the federal judiciary.
“We do have authority over the federal courts,” Johnson said in Tuesday’s press conference. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We do have power over funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”
Johnson isn’t looking to eliminate the courts, just limit the scope of their illicitly assumed authority.
Article III of the Constitution specifically vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and in “inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress determines the structure and funding of the district court system.
Meanwhile, Republicans are plotting other ways to respond to the judges amid the calls for impeachment. The House is set to vote next week on the No Rogue Rulings Act, a bill led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) that would limit the power of the nation’s nearly 700 district judges to impose nationwide injunctions.
Johnson said that change would be “a dramatic improvement” of the federal court system, calling the historical increase in district judges issuing nationwide injunctions “out of the norm.”
“It is a dangerous trend and it violates justice under law, that critical principle. It violates our system itself. It violates the separation of powers when a judge thinks that they can enjoin something that a president is doing, that the American people voted for. That is not what the founders intended,” Johnson said. “So, there’s a natural tension between the branches of the government, and we’re working through that.”
Johnson said there could be more legislation coming to address Republican concerns with the judiciary.
The House Judiciary Committee is also set to hold a hearing next week to examine the issue of nationwide injunctions and other “abuses” of judicial authority.
They need to do less talking and engage in more action.
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) says his legislation will limit the jurisdiction of federal judges AGAINST nationwide injunctions.
They would only be allowed to impact the people inside that SPECIFIC case.
“Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to limit… pic.twitter.com/iWPUlAyStt
— Lydia Formichella (@MAGAlydiafree) March 23, 2025
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Johnson is the little engine that couldn’t.
When is the judiciary committee going to meet?
Time to put them, soros judges, in yheir place. This IS an insurrection…Demoncraps take note…
‘their’
Notice the wording these judges are using. Many use the phrase “likely violated “. Don’t you KNOW judge? If the judge doesn’t KNOW a law was violated, WHY are they issuing a TRO?? Anything is “likely” — using that criteria, there is absolutely nothing a judge couldn’t throw a TRO at.
FFS.
That is absolutely unconstitutional. I don’t like a decision so I strip funding, delete a district? Law constrains the majority so there is not tyranny on the minority.
Corrupt minds think and talk alike.^^^
Read a book before you make such stupid comments.
Such as what, enlightened one? I made coherent points that you don’t like. Remember, at some point gop won’t be in power. You want liberals with this kind of unrestrained power? Ok.
Are you mad?. Because you’ve made no other point than to voice your anguish and to make a fool of yourself.
Name one thing that the democrats have done in the last decade that has been correct?.
I see pile of problems that need to be fixed.
I see trump fixing what the democrats have screwed up by ignoring the law, and uncovering huge amounts of illegal waste and fraud, you don’t like to see that happening?.
That is more nonsensical babbling, This is about unrestrained judicial abuses.
Look at this noisemaker folks. The Constitution provides legislative control over these things. The Constitution only gives the supreme court authority over anything like this. Is being 100% wrong your habit?
Do it already.