GOP hits back after judges demand Trump allies be con­demned for tar­get­ing judi­cia­ry

FIRST ON FOX: The GOP law­mak­er lead­ing a col­lec­tive response to more than 100 judges and attor­neys who demand­ed con­dem­na­tion of Trump allies said Tues­day she and her del­e­ga­tion won’t be “pushed around” amid ongo­ing attacks on left-wing judges.

Wyoming’s con­gres­sion­al del­e­ga­tion respond­ed to dozens of Cow­boy State jurists, includ­ing a for­mer gov­er­nor who issued an open con­dem­na­tion of law­mak­ers’ fail­ure to defend judges under fire from con­ser­v­a­tives over sweep­ing nation­wide injunc­tions hin­der­ing Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s for­eign pol­i­cy and home­land secu­ri­ty actions.

The response, led by Sen. Cyn­thia Lum­mis, R‑Wyo., reject­ed the basis on which the jurists were call­ing for the state’s Repub­li­cans to vocif­er­ous­ly inter­vene in sup­port of what the White House describes as rogue judges, cit­ing the Found­ing Fathers’ words.

“In Fed­er­al­ist [Paper] 78…  Alexan­der Hamil­ton wrote that “the judi­cia­ry, from the nature of its func­tions, will always be the least dan­ger­ous” and that judges “have nei­ther force nor will,” the let­ter states. 

WYOMING SHERIFF’S BOLD BILLBOARD RECRUITING DENVER OFFICERS OUT OF LIBERAL CITY CREATES STIR

“In recent years, we have become increas­ing­ly con­cerned with how our coun­try has strayed from this Hamil­ton­ian aspi­ra­tion. We have seen judges across the polit­i­cal spec­trum assume both “force” and “will” — Many Amer­i­cans are wor­ried judges are mis­us­ing their inde­pen­dence by impos­ing pol­i­cy pref­er­ences on our coun­try — all with no account­abil­i­ty.”

They also not­ed George­town Law pro­fes­sor Brad Sny­der “said it best” – “The Court does not have the last word on the Con­sti­tu­tion.”

‘TRAITOR’ LIZ CHENEY WALLOPED BY WYOMING VOTERS FOR HARRIS ENDORSEMENT, BREAK FROM GOP

In com­ments to Fox News Dig­i­tal, Lum­mis said Amer­i­cans elect­ed Trump and did not select “lib­er­al judges.”

“I rep­re­sent the peo­ple of Wyoming, and they have made it clear that they sup­port Pres­i­dent Trump’s agen­da and want a gov­ern­ment where their elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives make the laws,” she said.

“Our del­e­ga­tion stands with Pres­i­dent Trump and won’t be pushed around by far-left judi­cial activists who wish to fur­ther divide our coun­try.”

The jurists object­ing to the Repub­li­cans’ silence cit­ed calls to reject dis­in­for­ma­tion after the Jan. 6 Capi­tol riot and sim­i­lar­ly recount­ed cri­tiques from admin­is­tra­tion allies of judges, like James Boas­berg, who have issued nation­wide injunc­tions block­ing Trump’s home­land secu­ri­ty mea­sures.

In a mis­sive enti­tled “The Rule of Law Mat­ters,” they cit­ed more vir­u­lent cri­tiques of such judges, as well as a con­ser­v­a­tive op-ed decry­ing that “if impeach­ment is the rem­e­dy for every adverse judi­cial rul­ing, we wouldn’t have a judi­cia­ry left.”

“These attacks are part of a grow­ing effort to dis­cred­it, not just judges, but seem­ing­ly the Amer­i­can Rule of Law as we know it,” the orig­i­nal let­ter states. It was signed by about 100 jurists, includ­ing for­mer Wyoming Demo­c­ra­t­ic Gov. Michael Sul­li­van, for­mer Pres­i­dent Bill Clinton’s Irish ambas­sador.

“Recent exec­u­tive orders tar­get­ing promi­nent nation­al law firms dis­fa­vored by the admin­is­tra­tion with severe ret­ri­bu­tion… has, as night fol­lows day, result­ed in yet more incen­di­ary social media post­ings attack­ing the judi­cia­ry and open­ly encour­ag­ing the exec­u­tive branch to dis­obey court orders.”

In their response to the scores of jurists, Lum­mis, Sen. John Bar­ras­so and Rep. Har­ri­et Hage­man con­demned the fact the direct let­ter had also been dis­trib­uted to the media and that the law­mak­ers would have col­lec­tive­ly appre­ci­at­ed direct dis­cus­sion.

“We are dis­ap­point­ed you failed to express your con­cerns with us direct­ly before rush­ing to pub­lish your let­ter,” they wrote.

“A robust dis­cus­sion about address­ing the chal­lenges and con­cerns fac­ing our nation would be more ben­e­fi­cial than attempt­ing to score polit­i­cal points through the press.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The com­plainants wrote that while there is pop­ulist sen­ti­ment for “rad­i­cal change,” the “grow­ing reck­less dis­dain for the inde­pen­dence and secu­ri­ty of our judi­cia­ry must be resist­ed by any­one sworn to uphold our Con­sti­tu­tion.

“That includes us, and it cer­tain­ly includes you.”

The law­mak­ers stood firm, how­ev­er, on the idea that they are act­ing respon­si­bly and with­in their leg­isla­tive role.

They cit­ed their co-spon­sor­ship of a bill that would ban most nation­wide injunc­tions effect­ing change “across the ide­o­log­i­cal spec­trum,” and not just those against Trump’s actions.

Leg­is­la­tion high­light­ed by the law­mak­ers cit­ed both con­ser­v­a­tive and lib­er­al Supreme Court jus­tices issu­ing crit­i­cisms of such nation­wide injunc­tions.

“The Supreme Court has con­sis­tent­ly not­ed that polit­i­cal ques­tions should be kept at arm’s length by the judi­cia­ry,” they wrote, as a Sen­ate Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee state­ment on the Judi­cial Relief Clar­i­fi­ca­tion Act quot­ed reser­va­tions from both Jus­tices Clarence Thomas and Ele­na Kagan.

Oth­er jurists have, how­ev­er, echoed Trump’s crit­i­cisms, includ­ing George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty law pro­fes­sor Jonathan Tur­ley, who told Fox News’ “The Ingra­ham Angle” that judges must remem­ber they’ve been “appoint­ed, not anoint­ed.”