District Judges Are the Real “Threat to Democracy”

by David McCalmont

Every Democrat-appointed federal district judge who grants broad nationwide injunctions against executive orders is a direct assault against the democratic process.

In every way of assessing the outcome of the last election, there is no doubt that Trump/Vance, the Republican Party, and America First policies were victorious.

They should be permitted to govern.

Yet, a handful of unelected District Court judges – appointed by Democrat presidents as partisan go-to lightning rods – have thrown major wrenches into the president’s agenda, an agenda that reflects that democratic will of the people.

Going back to my high school and college debate club days, in the era when people were searching for intellectual arguments in support of expansion of governmental powers, a major topic of debate was, “Does/should federal aid lead to federal control?” In the days before the Cabinet-level Department of Education was founded (by Jimmy Carter circa 1977), advocates of greater government input wished to use federal tax dollars to augment local property taxes to provide more revenue for local school districts.

Those were the days when local school districts were run for the most part by local school boards with local tax dollars and some state tax monies. Those opposed to more federal and state money funneled into local education cried, “Federal Aid Means Federal Control.” Those favoring federal aid were taking that political stance for the very reason that political entities giving away tax dollars have the right and obligation to attach strings to that money. By necessity, advocates had to downplay the federal control part. Over time, government expanded in every direction and – with great earnestness – applied the strings that always come with the granting of tax dollars.

Standing in Line at the Slop Troughs

Nobody argues these points anymore. Two generations ago, political bodies such as local school districts reluctantly accepted federal money and the onerous restrictions that came as part of the package. Today, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) line up like bovines before a slop trough waiting for handouts. There's no ideological chasm between the NGOs and the federal workforce.

They're on the same page.

There's also a sense of entitlement on both sides of the fence. The bureaucrats scream bloody murder if there's any talk of auditing, monitoring, or questioning the purpose of the bureau that itself consumes 70% of the bureau's budget. Talk of cutting back the budget – or deleting the bureau out of existence – is anathema. On the other side of the equation, the NGOs feel this federal money is theirs and has been rightly earned; woe be to anybody who stands between them and the slop trough.

Along comes President Donald Trump seeking to keep a campaign promise to eliminate federal funding from Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) programs. Why? Because they violate Civil Rights laws dating back to President Johnson… and because they promote unproductive, silly, and destructive policies. Keep in mind “Federal Aid Means Federal Control.” That's a settled legal fact. These DEI and transgender NGOs are demanding their due largesse from the federal government. But there's a new sheriff at the station with a new posse to run things. Empowered by a mandate from voters, the new sheriff doesn't wish to finance these toxic and infectious gender and race theories.

He's canceling all their grants and contracts.

So, what do the NGOs do? They swagger on over to a District Judge who plays on their team and demands an injunction canceling the executive orders of the newly elected Sheriff.

Why should the political judge do so?

“Because,” he’ll say, “President Trump is trampling on their First Amendment rights to promulgate stupid and dangerous gender and race theories with taxpayer dollars.” In other words, yanking money from their grubby paws is nothing less than stifling their free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

A large contingent of voters support the ideological buffoonery behind such thinking. Democrats in rout will hang their hat on anything that gives their lost cause credibility, plausibility, and/or time. It's a privilege in our society to receive a government grant. If the government no longer wishes to give you the grant, there is no impact on your free speech rights. You are free and available to go fund your staff, beliefs, and projects, elsewhere. Under Clinton, Obama, and Biden, these favored NGOs not only received far more money from the government than they probably could raise from the public at large, but they gained the leverage and power of being linked to a societal 800-pound elephant. These people became a politically protected – and hence feared and untouchable – class.

With the new Sheriff and his Posse riding herd on the Bad Guys, these previously protected groups are not only losing their easy funding but they're also losing their swag which comes from marching in the draft of an 800-pound authoritarian government. Worse, they've lost the protective armor which comes free of charge with the whole protected-class package. These people's backs are against the wall. They are exposed, weak, and vulnerable. They are going to make use of any and every tool dropped in their lap that gives them hope they can win back what they've lost.

I don't think they're going to be too picky about how they regain their previous status.

Attention to civility and first principles are not on their bucket list.

•••

A judge has blocked part of Donald Trump's executive orders, arguing that the termination of government DEI contracts is a “coercive threat.”