I have said it before, and I will say it again: Ed Meese is one of the greatest Attorneys General in American history.
Ed Feulner—one of the founding fathers of the Heritage Foundation, who led it for more than three decades, and the man who helped author the blueprint for the Reagan agenda back in 1981,
• And of course, the inimitable Kay Coles James. You are doing fabulous things here every day and your leadership is felt throughout the movement.
It is wonderful to be with you at a time when conservative ideas are having success again.
And the proper role of the judiciary is critical. Donald Trump has appointed 84 federal judges—including two Supreme Court justices, and 29 circuit judges.
These judicial appointees are the culmination of decades of the work done by those in this room, and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the heirs to this legacy.
But many would sacrifice that heritage of law and objectivity to gain short-term ideological or political advantage.
Accordingly, the Founders distributed power across three co-equal branches of government.
One argument for activism was advocated openly by President Obama when he declared his judicial nominees must judge with “empathy.”
Thus, federal district court judges are not empowered to fashion immigration policy, combat climate change,
But a new tactic of judicial activism is emerging—call it judicial encroachment.
This trend is manifesting itself in several ways.
Indeed, courts are even ignoring explicit congressional directives that strip them of jurisdiction to decide certain questions.
Yet, after the Secretary justifiably decided to terminate the designation for individuals from 4 countries, a federal district court held it does have jurisdiction to review the decision.
In the first 175 years of this Republic, not a single judge issued one of these orders.
The third manifestation of judicial encroachment is the increasing authorization of invasive discovery into executive branch deliberations.
When a private party makes a legal challenge to Executive action, the final decisions made by the President and members of his Cabinet are fair game for litigation.
What matters for legal purposes is the judge’s final product—the legal ruling. So, too, with most Executive branch decisions.
The Constitution establishes an Executive branch—as Hamilton put it in Federalist 70—to avoid “a feeble execution of the government.” “Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch,”
Those conditions have to be met. Those constraints have to be followed.
These concepts of protecting Executive branch deliberations were not invented by FOIA or the APA. Rather, those statutes adopt long standing legal traditions.
Subjecting the executive branch to this kind of discovery is unacceptable. We intend to fight this and we intend to win.
If they do not, then judges are fairly subject to the same criticism of other political leaders, and the same calls for their replacement.
Only reason to dislike him is ignorance, in my opinion.***