In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned the multitude to “Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”  This advice should be given to the rogue judges who are abusing their authority to prevent the President of the United States from implementing the policies that the voters reelected him to carry out.

The sermon was aimed at neighbor judging neighbor.  But what of the group who are chosen to be judges?  Appointed for life, who judges them when they are seriously in need of judging?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently issued her own warning to judges who view themselves as dictators rather than the referees that the Constitution intended them to be.  Justice Barrett counseled,  “We judges don’t dispense justice solely as we see it; instead, we’re constrained by law adopted through the democratic process.”  Barrett continued, “On the bench, we must suppress our individual beliefs in deference to those that have prevailed in the enacted law.  Our job is to protect the choices that citizens have made, even when we disagree with them…”  “[Judges] They are referees, not kings, because they decide whether people have played by the rules rather than what the rules should be.”

Justice Barrett gave a personal example.  She stated that, personally she opposes he death penalty, but that she cannot allow her personal beliefs to affect her judgment.  “The people who adopted the Constitution didn’t share my view of the death penalty, and neither do all my fellow citizens today.”  “If I distort the law to make it difficult for them to impose the death penalty, I interfere with the voters’ right to self-government.”  Amen.  It’s good to see that, every once in a while, a high-ranking government official recognizes the voters’ right to self-government.

And Justice Barrett has practiced what she’s preached.  A few months ago, in her majority opinion in the case that struck down the improper nationwide injunction in the case challenging President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, she made a harsh rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”  Justice Barrett suggested that Justice Jackson should heed her own admonition, “Everyone from the President on down is bound by the law.  That goes for judges too.”

Although, in June, the Supreme Court warned District Judges against taking the law into their own hands, the rogue judges have not exhibited contrition, as they continue to try to make the law, or be the law, rather than simply interpret the law, which was the role intended for them by the Constitution.

In 1787 and 1788, as the States were considering the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, writing under the pseudonym “Publius,” published 85 articles to promote its ratification.  In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the federal judiciary would be the “least dangerous” branch of government, lacking the power of the sword or the purse, but possessing the vital power of judicial review to interpret the Constitution and safeguard individual rights by checking legislative acts.”  He advocated for judicial independence through lifetime appointments to ensure judges could make rulings free from political pressure and uphold the rule of law.

The Founders conceived the federal government as a government of delegated powers, which was to exercise only those functions specifically granted to it by the Constitution, all non-delegated powers to be left to the States or to the people.  Sadly, as the other two branches of the federal government have ballooned out of proportion, the judiciary has experienced commensurate delusions of omnipotence.  Sadder yet, the current tyranny of the judges is all the more obnoxious because it is wholly political.

I’ll explain.  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution spells out what functions the Congress may perform.  Coin money, establish a Post Office, promote commerce, etc.  It’s not supposed to intrude on non-delegated functions, like education, and local safety regulations.  But the federal government couldn’t control itself.  It branched out into non-delegated functions, often by tying State compliance to federal funding.

Ever wonder how or why all 50 States enacted the 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970’s?  Think it was due to an energy crisis or to protect the environment?  Think again.  After Jimmy Carter screwed up the oil industry with equally unconstitutional energy regulations, the States were told, either adopt 55 MPH or lose federal highway money.  And since federally financed boondoggle highway projects are a great way for State politicians to wring “campaign contributions” from wealthy road contractors, the States readily complied.  The federal carrot and stick method of using federal funds to enforce compliance is a time-honored tradition.

Using money to extort the States like mobsters is bad enough, but the recent judicial tyranny is purely political.  It has but one aim, to stop President Trump from carrying out the will of the voters who elected him.  As noted above, Presidents have used the granting or withholding of federal money as a tool for generations, and, until recently, judges have turned a blind eye to the practice, correctly concluding that they had no authority to interfere in the operations of the Executive.

That changed when Trump became the Executive.  This week, a rogue Obama judge ruled that Trump can’t withhold funding for Harvard University unless it addresses its antisemitism problem.  According to the judge, Trump’s action violates the right to free speech.  The judge misses the point.  Harvard can do or say whatever it pleases.  It just can’t rely on the federal government to fund its pleasure.  They have the right to free speech, but no right to government money.  The same principle applies to the defunding of PBS and NPR.

And the judicial tyranny goes beyond the funding cases.  Rogue judges are holding up or forbidding lawful deportations of illegal aliens, most of them criminals.  The Constitution delegates control of immigration and naturalization to the federal government.  Congress has enacted laws governing immigration.  Yet, while the Biden Administration flaunted, ignored, and blatantly violated Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the judges did nothing.

In other words, the judiciary overlooked Biden’s failures to enforce the law of the land, but now constantly intrudes on Trump’s efforts to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed,” as the Constitution commands every President to do.  The blatant lawfare and forum shopping has turned officials who are supposed to be impartial judges into partisans, who have abandoned their oath to uphold the Constitution.  This must not be tolerated.

Perhaps, as applied to the judges, the admonition to “Judge not” should be amended to “Judge what you were hired to judge, and no more.”