Andy Schlafly joined the WorldNetDaily writers complaining that judges are holding President Trump accountable to the law. He huffed in a March 20 column:
On Tuesday President Trump called for the impeachment of a federal judge, to which Chief Justice Roberts retorted by urging an appeal instead. Roberts is apparently panicked about the prospect of many impeachments raining down on federal judges based on shocking decisions.
The recent interference by a federal court in D.C. with President Trump’s deportation of Venezuelan gang members is an egregious overreach by the federal judiciary. Presidents, not judges, are elected to protect national security against a foreign invasion.
Impeachment is not the only option available to Trump, and Republicans in Congress to provide a check-and-balance against the federal judiciary as established by our Constitution. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch because the other two branches decide what power to give it, and what rulings to enforce.
Congress has defunded the enforcement of improper judicial decisions in the past, and has withdrawn jurisdiction entirely from federal courts over many topics. Why should a federal court even have authority over a decision by a president to deport dangerous illegal aliens?
Schlafly mixed pro-Trump rah-rah with his grousing about the legal system in his April 3 column:
Suddenly the Supreme Court has a pile of cases that could decide the future of the MAGA movement, on everything from deportation to transgender policy to firing federal workers. The queue stacks up at the high court with appeals of judicial activist rulings against Trump.
Liberals are shrewd enough to file their lawsuits against Trump in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th, 1st and D.C. Circuits, which rule for them nearly every time. The anti-Trumpers then hedge their bet by filing multiple identical lawsuits within additional left-leaning circuits, while meticulously avoiding the Republican-dominated 5th and 8th Circuits.
While a candidate, Trump heroically overcame lawfare against him, which has blocked presidential candidates in Brazil, Romania and most recently in France. “That sounds like this country,” Trump complained about the French judge who recently banned Marine Le Pen from running for president while “she was the leading candidate.”
Schlafly then claimed that Robert Kennedy Jr. “has proven to be one of Trump’s finest Cabinet picks, firing 10,000 employees from the bloated HHS bureaucracy while shifting it away from its hidden agenda to promote the pharmaceutical industry.” He was silent about Kennedy’s longtime anti-vaxxer activism.
Schlafly complained more about so-called “lawfare” in his April 10 column:
The Left has filed more than 170 lawsuits against President Trump despite his commanding margin of victory last November. Lawsuits by liberal nonprofits frustrate the will of the people by blocking Trump’s ability to deport dangerous foreigners, downsize government and end the funding of harmful projects.
On Monday night, the Supreme Court gave Trump a partial victory on his deportation of Venezuelan gang members, but included enough loopholes for the Left to continue its interference with his executive authority. The Court properly tossed out Democrat-appointed D.C. federal Judge James Boasberg’s class-action certification for illegal aliens, but allowed immigration groups to sue in Texas instead.
The Court invited individual lawsuits to be brought on behalf of every single person whom Trump tries to deport. Lawsuits take years to litigate, and the practical result is that only a handful could be deported.
Schlafly didn’t explain why people no longer have individual rights. Instead, he continued to whine that Trump can’t act as authoritarian as he wants by quoting one of his minions:
The leftist lawfare is “popping up every single day, trying to control his executive power. … It’s basically a game of whack-a-mole with these District Court judges. … But that’s why we’re appealing all of these cases … up to the Supreme Court,” Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News Sunday.
Schlafly chered one victory for the Trump side in his May 8 column:
A 6-3 Supreme Court win for President Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers came on Tuesday just as the deluge of liberal lawsuits was worsening. Improper court injunctions have been piling up like cars crashing in a fog on a crowded highway.
Under Trump’s order that the Court just allowed to go into effect, “service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military service.” This reverses the disastrous pro-transgender policy of Biden.
But soon, he was back to whining about judges and lawsuits he doesn’t like:
In the short month of February alone, there were 15 nationwide injunctions entered by Democrat-appointed judges against the Trump administration. This stymies the will of American voters who gave Trump his mandate last November to Make America Great Again.
On Monday, nearly two dozen Democrat state attorneys general filed three new lawsuits against Trump. Despite how these states span our country from coast-to-coast, they filed all of their lawsuits in federal district courts in New England where the district and appellate judges are nearly entirely Democrat-appointed, making this the most one-sided legal venue in our nation.
[…]One of the Democrats’ recent lawsuits is to block Trump’s executive orders protecting our environment against clanky offshore windmill boondoggles. While Democrat states refuse to allow offshore drilling for oil, as California has banned for decades, Democrats insist on constructing hundreds of wind turbines within sight of our beaches in the false promise they will produce efficient energy.
Maryland and other liberal states want to construct ugly wind turbines off their coasts, which blight the beautiful views and become a giant killing machine for birds. Trump’s executive order wisely suspends permits for these inefficient monstrosities pending review as to their high costs compared with their dubious benefits.
Schlafly didn’t explain why aesthetics should override the law.