Court Jesters

The courts aren't the answer to the Democrats' woes:

Running to the courts to stop Elon Musk from cutting programs from the bloated U.S. budget or Donald Trump from enforcing an executive order is legal but disingenuous. Rather than work with the new administration as a sort of “loyal opposition” or recognize that the people have spoken and this is the government that they want, Democrats run to the court to either stop Trump or advance their own policies. While many of the efforts will fail at higher levels of judicial review, the practice prevents our elected officials from doing what the American people want: talk and compromise. Running to the courts may feel good, but Americans want those in the minority to either accept the will of the majority or work on compromises that allow for smaller victories. Running to the courts to stop an executive action is in place of doing what parliamentarians are expected to do: make deals. While Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrinch came from two ends of the political spectrum, in their day, they understood that they needed to work together. They did so, and much legislation was passed and America actually ran a budget surplus in Clinton’s final years as president. The court system has a critical role in the success of the American experiment. One role it was not meant to have was that of an alternative legislative forum for minority legislators. Going to the courts to stop the new administration should be considered only as a last resort. The Democrats need to understand that the people have broadly rejected their DEI/climate/trans/inflationary program. Kamala Harris did not lose by a whisker. Work with the Republicans and get the people’s business done. Don’t use the courts to prevent the elected government from doing its job.

It's not up to the judges...