Apparently, the only part of "separation of powers" these Judges understand is trying to separate Trump from the power he was given by the voters.
Welcome to the latest season of Judges Gone Wild, where robed activists from across America compete in the high-stakes game of Who’s the Real President?
The premise is simple: Each contestant (a.k.a. a federal judge) tries to outdo the others in blocking, halting, suspending, and outright dictating national policy—because who needs a pesky thing like an election when you have a lifetime appointment and a gavel?
Our current frontrunner? Judge Paul Engelmayer, who boldly ruled that Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) must be barred from accessing Treasury Department payment systems.
Engelmayer issued the preliminary injunction after 19 Democratic attorneys general sued President Donald Trump, citing concerns over the potential misuse of sensitive personal data. Because nothing screams "judicial neutrality" like preventing efforts to streamline government operations.
Judge John Coughenour took things a step further by ruling that Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship was "blatantly unconstitutional." His groundbreaking legal theory: “The executive branch cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution.” Because let’s be honest, nothing ruins a good day quite like adhering to the actual text of the 14th Amendment.
Not to be outdone, Judge John McConnell blocked Trump's federal funding freeze, declaring that the administration's actions "violate the Constitution." His rationale? “The executive branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through congressional appropriations, not through 'presidential priorities.'” Because who needs efficient government spending when you can have endless bureaucracy?
But wait there's more ..
Judge John Bates, who boldly ruled that the Trump administration must restore government websites promoting gender ideology and sex change operations. Because nothing screams "judicial neutrality" like forcing a duly elected president to fund pages that say, “Your toddler may be a different gender—don’t ask questions!”
Just one more...after Trump's Department of Justice proposed investigating sanctuary cities for aiding and abetting illegal immigration, a San Francisco judge issued an emergency restraining order, declaring that any attempt to enforce immigration law is a violation of “our sacred duty to keep California stocked with Democratic voters.”
The Great Constitutional Smackdown: Who’s Actually the President?
At this point, one has to wonder: Is Trump still president, or have these judges formed a secret shadow government?
Are they convening in an undisclosed location, perhaps a dimly lit wine cave, drafting their own executive orders with the help of constitutional law expert Barack Obama’s pen and phone?
The sheer audacity of these rulings raises serious questions:
Do these judges believe they have veto power over the entire executive branch?
Is the Supreme Court now just an overpaid appeals process for lower courts who don’t like Trump’s policies?
Are we moments away from a judge demanding that all White House decisions be pre-approved by MSNBC?
Trump’s Response: The Art of Ignoring Nonsense
Sources close to the administration report that Trump was last seen scrolling through X, sipping Diet Coke, and muttering “Sad!” while reading these rulings.
Vice President J.D. Vance, however, suggested the administration take things up a notch, floating the idea of simply “defying these rulings” on the grounds that judges don’t actually run the country.
This sent CNN into an immediate meltdown, with anchors declaring:
“This is the greatest threat to democracy since the invention of voting machines that don't flip votes to Democrats automatically!”
“We are living through a constitutional crisis! Judges must be respected as the rightful rulers of the land!”
“If Trump doesn’t obey, we may have to convene a panel of TikTok influencers to restore law and order!”
Meanwhile, Musk, in his usual style, responded to the Treasury payment system ruling with a single post:
“Cry harder.”
Final Thoughts: When Will Judges Accept They’re Not the President?
In the end, this wave of judicial activism isn’t about the law—it’s about raw political power.
These leftist judges aren’t interested in interpreting the Constitution—they’re interested in rewriting it to say:
"The executive branch shall have no authority unless it involves sending billions of dollars to Ukraine, funding drag queen story hour, or banning gas stoves.”
With each passing day, their delusion grows: They believe they alone have the power to decide what laws stand and which ones fall, elections be damned.
So perhaps the real question isn’t who’s the president? but rather…At what point does Trump just start signing executive orders with the disclaimer: “Not subject to review by Judge Karen”?
Stay tuned, America. Judges Gone Wild is just getting started.
Disclaimer: This article is a parody based on true events, using comedic intent to highlight the absurdity of recent judicial rulings that challenge the authority of a duly elected president. While the humor is exaggerated, the underlying issue is very real: the increasing tendency of activist judges to behave as if they—not the voters—should determine national policy.
Judicial Overreach: The Slippery Slope to Rule by Robes
There was a time when judges simply interpreted the law. Now, it seems many believe their black robes come with a scepter and veto power over the executive branch. When a handful of unelected officials can override national policy at will, we have to ask: Who is really in charge?
The Constitution was designed with three co-equal branches, but some judges have rebranded the Judicial Branch as the Supreme Rulers of America™. What started as “blocking Trump’s controversial policies” has escalated into undermining core executive functions, turning courts into political weapons.
The danger isn’t just for Trump. If judges can hijack presidential authority today, what stops them from dictating economic policy, military strategy, or even election outcomes tomorrow? If we let courts become mini dictatorships, the voice of the American people is overruled by judicial fiat.
As the old saying goes: “Give an activist judge an inch, and they’ll take the whole Constitution hostage.”
And that’s not a joke.
Comments