The Judiciary,
Once our Constitution's Guardian,
Is Now In Freefall
by Will Wainwright
Preface
America’s judiciary, once the impartial guardian of justice, has become a polarized battleground. A clear pattern has emerged: activist judges, often unelected and ideologically progressive, frequently prioritize politics over law and public safety.
In courtrooms nationwide, lenient rulings by liberal jurists repeatedly release violent offenders, endangering communities. Simultaneously, many of the same judges issue sweeping injunctions to block President Trump’s executive actions, often from distant districts, using strained legal reasoning to override the elected branches.
This dissertation examines both trends: the real-world harm of ideological “reform” in criminal justice, and the extraordinary judicial resistance to thwart a president’s agenda. When Judicial Overreach routinely places ideology above the Constitution, we’ve got problems.
Just who will guard the guardians?
Holding Judges Accountable
A Necessary Reform to Protect Public Safety
In recent times, a disturbing pattern has emerged across the United States: violent criminals with extensive histories of arrests and convictions are repeatedly released by judges, only to commit heinous acts that result in needless deaths and suffering. These perpetrators, often with well over a dozen encounters with the law, are set free under lenient policies, sometimes influenced by what critics describe as overly progressive judicial philosophies. The consequences are heartbreaking.causing innocent lives lost in purposeless acts of violenc, yet the judges responsible face no discipline, even when their decisions directly contribute to these tragedies. I argue for a bold legislative change: a law that punishes and potentially terminates judges who release repeat offenders, prioritizing public safety over sympathy for criminals. Specifically, when a perpetrator of a felony is released after their fourth offense and commits a fifth, the presiding judge over the fourth case should be removed from office. If the subsequent crime involves physical violence or murder, that judge should face imprisonment. Judges are entrusted with acumen and wisdom not only in interpreting the law but in safeguarding the public, a duty too often neglected in favor of the perpetrator.
The problem is not abstract; it is evidenced by numerous real-world cases where judicial leniency has led to preventable deaths. For instance, DeCarlos Brown Jr., a repeat violent offender with a history of 14 arrests, was released despite clear red flags and went on to murder Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, in a brutal stabbing on a Charlotte light rail. Similarly, Sanchez Nicholson, with 33 prior arrests including multiple attempted murders, was freed and later killed Nicola Tanzi. Alexander Dickey, arrested 39 times with 25 felonies, served only a fraction of his sentence before being released by Judge Bentley Price and murdering Logan Federico. These are not isolated incidents. In Chicago, lenient judges have been criticized for ignoring warning signs and caving to soft-on-crime pressures, resulting in repeat offenders committing violent acts like the train attack that revived debates on cashless bail. Historical cases, such as Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped and murdered Polly Klaas after multiple convictions only underscore how such releases fuel public outrage and inspire reforms like California's three-strikes law. Public discourse on platforms like X echoes this frustration, with figures like Elon Musk calling for judges and district attorneys to be held responsible for releasing "vicious murderers" who harm innocent victims. Ironically the vast numbers of these judges find their home in the democrat party.
At the heart of this issue is the glaring lack of accountability for judges. Unfortunaty, judicial immunity shields them from consequences, even when their rulings enable recidivism. Critics argue this creates a system where judges prioritize ideological leanings, often "liberal" or progressive, over empirical evidence of a criminal's danger to society. For example, in cases like that of Lawrence Reed, a career criminal with over 70 arrests who set Bethany MaGee on fire on a CTA train, the judges' decisions to release him repeatedly defy logic and public safety. This immunity contrasts sharply with other professions; a bartender can be held liable if they over-serve a patron who causes a fatal accident, yet a judge faces no repercussions for unleashing a known violent offender. If a surgeon makes a reckless mistake, they can lose their license. If a commercial driver acts negligently and causes harm, there are legal repercussions. Yet when a judge makes a decision that allows a clearly dangerous offender to harm others, there is rarely any institutional consequence.
As one X user poignantly stated, if group members can be charged with murder for one person's actions, judges who release lifetime criminals should face similar scrutiny. Without accountability, the cycle persists, eroding trust in the judiciary and endangering communities.
A Simple Solution
Start with exposure. Hold back nothing, images too. Release info ASAP. Begin first with the criminal offender's number of multiple arrests. His image and nationality should be a must even for a first offense. Mention the judge's name of last release in all stories related to the criminals previous crimes, along with the judge's record on violent crimes. Basically no softening up media coverage to prevent arousal of conscience by the public against the criminal(s) and especially the judiciary.
Secondly, a targeted law is essential. Judges must be held to a higher standard, given their role requires not just legal expertise but a primary regard for the public's well-being over the perpetrator's rehabilitation prospects. Under the proposed framework, a judge who releases a felon after their fourth offense would be automatically removed from the bench if that individual commits a fifth crime. This threshold acknowledges that by the fourth offense, patterns of behavior are evident, and further leniency is reckless. If the fifth offense involves violence or murder, the judge should be jailed, reflecting the gravity of their negligence. This mirrors calls in public forums for judges to face charges like negligent homicide or accessory to murder. Such measures would deter hasty releases and restore balance, ensuring judges weigh public safety foremost.
Momentum for reform is building. Legislators like Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) have introduced bills (HR 9123) to punish judges who release repeat violent offenders without bail, holding them accountable if further crimes occur. Similarly, Rep. Tim Moore's (R-NC) Judicial Accountability for Public Safety Act (H.R. 5649) aims to make judges civilly liable for harms caused by released violent criminals. In Maryland, debates rage over penalizing judges for light sentences leading to reoffenses. GOP efforts, including two major bills, seek broader accountability, countering concerns that such policies disproportionately affect marginalized communities by emphasizing victim protection. These initiatives align with the proposed law, substantiating that judicial reform is feasible and urgent.
The epidemic of deplorable deaths at the hands of released repeat offenders demands action. Judges, vested with immense power, must prioritize the public over perpetrators, and failure to do so—especially after multiple offenses—warrants severe consequences like removal or imprisonment. By enacting this law, society can honor victims, deter judicial negligence, and reaffirm that wisdom in the law means protecting the innocent first. The time for change is now, before more lives are senselessly lost.
Judicial Overreach it’s Negative Effects
on Presidential Executive Orders
In the American system of government, the separation of powers is designed to ensure a balance among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The president, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to issue executive orders (EOs) to direct the operations of the federal government and implement laws passed by Congress. However, in recent decades, federal district judges have increasingly issued nationwide injunctions to block these orders, effectively halting their implementation across the entire country. While judicial review is a cornerstone of the Constitution, the practice of a single judge wielding such broad power raises is being abused.
One primary negative effect is that these judicial interventions effectively create an additional legislative house, allowing judges to engage in policymaking rather than merely interpreting the law. Critics argue that nationwide injunctions exceed the traditional role of the courts, which should focus on resolving disputes for specific parties rather than imposing blanket national policies. When a district judge blocks an EO nationwide, they are not just adjudicating a case but rewriting executive policy on a grand scale, often based on their interpretation of its legality or constitutionality. This overreach politicizes the judiciary, as judges may inject personal or ideological biases into decisions that should be reserved for elected officials. For instance, the proliferation of such injunctions has been criticized as an abuse of power, enabling lower courts to thwart executive actions without sufficient historical precedent for such sweeping remedies. This practice distorts the separation of powers, turning judges into de facto legislators who can veto policies without the accountability of elections.
A related issue is how these blocks defy the president's mandate from the electorate. The president is elected by the nation as a whole to execute a vision for governance, often campaigning on specific policies that EOs help implement. When a single judge who is appointed for life and representing only a limited jurisdiction, halts an EO nationwide, it nullifies the will of millions of voters. This is particularly problematic because district judges are not accountable to a national constituency, yet their rulings can override a democratically elected leader's directives. For example, during Donald Trump's presidency, a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction blocking Executive Order 13780, commonly known as the "travel ban," which restricted entry from certain countries for national security reasons. This order was challenged on grounds of religious discrimination, and while lower courts blocked it, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a revised version in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), ruling 5-4 that it was within presidential authority. The initial block delayed implementation for months, frustrating the administration's mandate despite eventual vindication. Similarly, in a hypothetical 2025 case involving Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, lower court injunctions were issued before the Supreme Court curtailed such broad judicial power, highlighting how one judge's ruling can temporarily derail national policy. These examples illustrate how a lone judge's decision can undermine the executive's ability to act swiftly on promises made to voters.
Furthermore, the power of a single judge to issue nationwide injunctions leads to an automatic escalation to the Supreme Court, overburdening the highest court and creating inefficiencies in the judicial system. Every such block invites appeals, forcing the Supreme Court to intervene repeatedly to resolve what should be localized disputes. This not only clogs the docket but also results in routine overturns, wasting resources and eroding public confidence in the courts. For instance, in the case of Biden's student loan forgiveness program, outlined in an executive action under the HEROES Act, district courts issued injunctions blocking the plan nationwide, citing overreach of executive authority. The Supreme Court overturned these blocks in Biden v. Nebraska (2023), ruling 6-3 that the program exceeded statutory limits, but the process took over a year, during which the policy was stalled. Another example is Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, blocked by a Texas district judge in 2015; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the injunction, and the Supreme Court upheld the block in a 4-4 tie in United States v. Texas (2016). While not overturned, it exemplifies how lower court rulings force Supreme Court involvement, burdening the justices with cases that could be handled more narrowly. Critics note that this pattern has become more common, with nationwide injunctions only emerging prominently in the 21st century, lacking deep historical roots and contributing to judicial backlog.
Beyond these core issues, other reasons support limiting this judicial power. First, nationwide injunctions encourage forum shopping, where plaintiffs strategically file cases in districts with judges perceived as sympathetic to their cause, leading to inconsistent and biased outcomes. This has been a frequent criticism, as it allows ideological alignment to dictate national policy rather than merit. Second, they create legal uncertainty and chaos, as policies can be enforced in patchwork fashion if injunctions are not nationwide, or completely halted if they are. Either way disrupting governance. Third, this practice inhibits the percolation of legal issues through multiple circuits, preventing diverse judicial perspectives from developing before Supreme Court review, which can lead to hasty or poorly informed decisions at the top level. Finally, it risks politicizing the judiciary further, as judges may be seen as partisan actors, eroding trust in an institution meant to be impartial. These effects compound to weaken the executive branch's ability to respond to crises, such as national security or public health emergencies, where timely action is essential.
If the judiciary becomes, in practice, a “second legislature” or a “ an EO policy veto body”, then the system of checks and balances can collapse not because the executive is overbearing but because the judiciary has exceeded its proper boundaries. For the health of constitutional democracy, it may be necessary to reassert clear limits on judicial power, preserving the proper roles of each branch.