Judges don’t get to decide who the president’s prosecutors are. The Founders were very clear.
I’ve been carrying a pocket Constitution for eleven years. I’ve read it probably two hundred times. And I can tell you right now that nowhere—nowhere—does it say federal judges get to pick U.S. attorneys. The separation of powers the Founders intended puts prosecutors under the executive branch. Period.
So when I read about what’s happening in Virginia—a Trump-appointed judge demanding that Trump’s former personal attorney explain her continued use of the U.S. attorney title—I knew exactly what I was looking at. Judicial overreach. The kind the Founders warned us about.
Article II Is Not Complicated
The president appoints. The Senate confirms. That’s the process. Now, I’ll admit the Senate hasn’t confirmed Lindsey Halligan. And I’ll admit the previous interim appointment expired after 120 days, which is apparently some kind of limit. And I’ll admit a federal judge ruled that after those 120 days, the power to appoint shifted to the judges themselves. But that’s just one judge’s opinion.
The Justice Department’s response made this very clear. They called Judge Novak’s order an “inquisition.” They said he was making “rudimentary” errors. They said he had a “fixation” that was “untethered from how federal courts actually operate.” If Trump’s Justice Department says a judge is wrong, I’m going to trust Trump’s Justice Department. That’s just common sense.
Yes, Judge Novak is a Trump appointee. Yes, Judge Currie who made the original ruling was also a Trump appointee. But none of that matters. What matters is the Constitution, which I have read many times.
Judges Judging Judges
Here’s what really gets me. The case before Judge Novak was a bank robbery. Had nothing to do with the Comey and James prosecutions where the original ruling came down. So why is he asking questions about Halligan’s title?
I’ll tell you why. Because judges think they can do whatever they want. Never mind that Judge Novak was asking because another judge already ruled the appointment invalid. Never mind that the Justice Department didn’t request a stay of that ruling, which I’m told means it’s still in effect. Never mind that Halligan herself signed a filing saying the ruling was wrong while also not appealing it in a way that would pause it. The point is, judges need to stay in their lane and let the President have a pass for a change.
I wrote about this before when people were complaining about executive enforcement authority. The Constitution gives the president the power to execute the laws. If a judge says an appointment is unconstitutional, and the executive branch disagrees, who’s right? President Trump, that’s who.
The Real Constitutional Crisis
Everyone keeps talking about “constitutional crisis” like it’s the administration causing it. But who’s actually ignoring what the Constitution says? The judges who think they get to confirm prosecutors. The judges who issue orders about executive appointments in cases that have nothing to do with those appointments. The judges who threaten discipline when the Justice Department disagrees with them.
The Founders gave us separation of powers for a reason. Each branch stays in its lane and lets the president do what the president does.
I’m just an HVAC guy with a pocket Constitution. But I can read. And what I’m reading is judges who think their opinions override the president’s authority. The Founders had a word for that.
Actually, they had several. But I’ll keep it clean.
About the Author
