In a house editorial concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding President Donald Trump’s authority to reallocate some DoD funds toward building a border wall, The Wall Street Journal expressed the hope that the ruling—which lifted a nation-wide injunction issued by a Federal district [sic] judge—would send an appropriate signal to district judges regarding nation-wide injunctions. The editors also had this remark regarding such injunctions.
The proliferation of national injunctions has inserted judges into policy debates in ways they should avoid….
This is a misapprehension of the situation and a mischaracterization of what the judges are doing.
The proliferation has inserted no one; it is a result of judges choosing to insert themselves into policy debates.
Judges must avoid this, but they consciously have chosen to go outside their Constitutional authority and make policy—make law. These judges have ignored the simple Constitutional fact that policy discussions and debates are solely within the purview of the political branches of our government and that legislation is solely within the purview of Congress. Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution makes this abundantly clear even to an eighth-grade Civics student.
With their carefully considered decision to act extra-Constitutionally, these judges have equally carefully decided to violate their oath of office, which enjoins them to defend and to uphold our Constitution, not to depart from it.