For years, Americans have watched with mounting frustration as federal judges stretch their authority far beyond the courtroom. What was once a respected institution tasked with interpreting the law has morphed into something else entirely.
Too many judges now treat their robes as a mandate to impose their will on the democratic process. The separation of powers—that foundational safeguard our Founders so carefully constructed—is under sustained assault from jurists who apparently believe they answer to no one.
This judicial power grab has accelerated dramatically since President Trump returned to office. Courts have repeatedly interfered with the executive branch’s lawful exercise of its Constitutional duties.
But here’s what they didn’t count on. This administration refuses to roll over when judges try to seize powers that were never theirs to claim.
From Fox News:
President Donald Trump’s administration fired a U.S. attorney the same day he was sworn in for the role this week…
Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche was blunt about the firing in a Wednesday post on X. “Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella,” Blanche wrote.
The incident that prompted this forceful response represents perhaps the most brazen example yet of judicial overreach. A board of judges for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York decided—all on their own—to appoint Donald T. Kinsella as U.S. Attorney. That’s a position that unambiguously falls under presidential appointment authority. Kinsella was sworn in on Wednesday morning. By Wednesday evening, he was looking for new employment. (Talk about a short commute.)
The Constitution Speaks Clearly
The Founders were meticulous in their construction of our government. Article II leaves zero room for creative interpretation on this matter. The President appoints federal prosecutors. Full stop. Congress may establish certain procedural mechanisms, sure. But the appointment power itself? That rests squarely with the executive branch.
The court tried to justify its little power play by citing a provision allowing judicial appointment when a vacancy exists. Nice try. This narrow exception was never intended to let judges handpick their preferred prosecutors over a sitting president’s objections. It’s a stopgap measure—not a license for the judiciary to staff the executive branch according to its own political preferences.
Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s response cut through the legal fog with refreshing directness. No hand-wringing. No lengthy negotiation. No blue-ribbon commission to study the matter for six months. The Constitution says what it says. This administration enforced it within hours.
A Troubling Pattern Emerges
This incident didn’t materialize out of nowhere. It’s part of a sustained campaign by certain judges to hamstring the Trump administration’s ability to staff its own Justice Department.
Last month, a federal judge ruled that John Sarcone III was serving “unlawfully” as acting U.S. Attorney—despite being a qualified Trump appointee. Similar rulings have targeted other administration picks across the country.
Lindsey Halligan, appointed to serve in the Eastern District of Virginia, stepped down after a judge accused her of “masquerading” as U.S. Attorney. Alina Habba was disqualified from serving in New Jersey.
The pattern is unmistakable. Judges who disagree with this administration’s law enforcement priorities are weaponizing procedural technicalities to remove prosecutors who might actually enforce the law.
For conservative Americans who remember the Russia hoax and years of weaponized prosecutions against President Trump, the irony practically writes itself. The same judicial establishment that looked the other way during obvious abuses now claims deep concern about proper procedures. Spare us.
Leadership That Doesn’t Flinch
What distinguishes this administration is its refusal to be intimidated. Previous Republican presidents might have sought compromise. Appointed a more “acceptable” candidate.
Allowed the matter to wind through months of litigation while wringing their hands about institutional norms. President Trump and his Justice Department chose a different path entirely: immediate, decisive action grounded in Constitutional authority.
The Trump administration understands that yielding to judicial overreach only invites more of it. By responding swiftly and citing clear Constitutional authority, they’ve demonstrated that the rule of law applies to everyone—judges included.
When the judiciary forgets its place, this White House is more than happy to provide a reminder.
Key Takeaways
- Federal judges attempted to appoint a U.S. Attorney without presidential authority—and got shut down the same day.
- Deputy AG Todd Blanche invoked Article II, making clear that only the President appoints federal prosecutors.
- This incident reflects a broader pattern of judicial overreach targeting Trump administration appointments.
- Swift executive action sends a message: this administration will defend its Constitutional prerogatives without hesitation.
