In the hallowed halls of justice, where gavels bang like impatient drummers and robes flutter like capes in a bad superhero flick, your intrepid court reporter has been glued to the bench (literally, after that coffee spill). Today, we rewind to 2025, the year judges turned into Trump's personal veto vending machines, blocking administration orders faster than a filibuster on free lunch Fridays. And folks, we're viewing this circus through the lens of a spicy opinion piece from The Blaze, titled "Judges Now Veto Trump Prosecutors After the Senate Stalls Confirmations."
Buckle up; this is constitutional comedy gold, served with a side of schadenfreude.
Picture this: Donald J. Trump, back in the Oval Office like a sequel nobody saw coming (except everyone), ready to "faithfully execute" the laws – emphasis on execute, as in prosecuting the baddies who dogged him during his first go-round. But oh, the Senate! That august body of deliberation, where "august" means "slow as molasses in January." Democrats, wielding the infamous "blue slip" like a magical veto wand, stalled confirmations for U.S. attorneys – those 93 district prosecutors who are the DOJ's foot soldiers. As The Blaze piece hilariously lays out, only 19 of about 50 nominations got the green light by mid-December 2025, with a pitiful 13 more squeaking through days later. The rest? Languishing in limbo, thanks to home-state senators playing keep-away. It's like asking your ex for permission to date again – awkward, obstructive, and doomed from the start.
Enter the plot twist: the 120-day interim rule. Attorney General Pam Bondi (Trump's legal lioness) appoints temps to fill the gaps, but after four months, it's the district courts' turn to play judge, jury, and executioner of nominations. And boy, did they! In a move straight out of a satirical sketch, Democrat-appointed benches – stocked thicker with Obama/Biden picks than a vegan buffet with tofu – started rejecting Trump's interims like bad blind dates. Take Alina Habba, Trump's loyal lawyer-turned-prosecutor hopeful for New Jersey. She indicted Rep. LaMonica McIver for allegedly messing with ICE ops – bold! But poof, disqualified by a court where blue robes outnumber red ties. Or Lindsey Halligan in Virginia's Eastern District, who went after James Comey for fibbing to Congress and Letitia James (yes, that Letitia James) for mortgage fraud claims. Rejected! The Blaze calls it "lawfare" on steroids, where judges aren't just interpreting laws; they're moonlighting as HR reps for the resistance.
By my count – and I've got the transcripts to prove it – at least six interims got the judicial boot: Bill Essayli in Cali, Julianne Murray in Delaware, Sigal Chattah in Nevada, Ryan Ellison in New Mexico, John Sarcone in New York North, and the aforementioned Habba. These weren't random rejections; they came from courts where the bench looked like a Democratic donor reunion. Nevada? All seven judges courtesy of Obama/Biden. New York's Northern District? Five out of five. It's as if the framers designed separation of powers, but forgot to add "unless the other side gets salty." The article nails it: This isn't just delay; it's a constitutional conga line where the judiciary dances all over executive turf. Trump wants to prosecute? Too bad – the Republican Senate stalls, courts veto, and suddenly, the president's "take care" clause is more like "take a number and wait."
Humor me for a moment (pun intended): Imagine Trump in the White House, pounding his desk like a drum solo, yelling, "You're fired!" at empty prosecutor chairs. Meanwhile, in courtrooms across the land, judges – many appointed by his arch-nemeses – are essentially saying, "Not on our watch, Donny." The Blaze piece drips with irony, pointing out how Morrison v. Olson (that 1988 Supreme Court gem) once pooh-poohed interbranch meddling, yet here we are, with courts appointing (or nixing) prosecutors willy-nilly. And looming like a judicial Jenga tower is Trump v. Slaughter, set to potentially gut Humphrey's Executor and restore presidential hire/fire power. If that goes Trump's way, 2025's blockades might crumble like a stale pretzel of precedent.
But let's zoom out, Your Honors. This judicial jamming session didn't just stall prosecutors; it gummed up Trump's whole agenda. Border security orders? Challenged in courts where veto-happy judges rule. Election integrity probes? Same story. The article warns of a bigger threat: If courts can veto executive officers indefinitely, what's next? Judges picking the president's coffee order? ("Decaf only – we deem caffeine a threat to stability.") It's a farce that exposes the blue-slip as less "advice and consent" and more "obstruct and resent." Democrats cry "norms!" but as The Blaze quips (in spirit, if not verbatim), this is norms turned nuclear – lawfare boomeranging back at the left.
In 2025, we saw over a dozen major Trump orders blocked or delayed by these very dynamics: from deportation directives in California courts to antitrust actions against Big Tech in New York. One standout: A Nevada judge nixing an interim who targeted sanctuary city enablers, citing "lack of qualifications" – code for "too Trumpy." Appeals are pending, but the DOJ's debating whether the 120-day clock is a one-and-done or a reset button. Spoiler: It's messy, like a food fight in a law library.
As your court reporter wraps this roast, remember: Democracy dies in delays, but it thrives on satire. Trump's team fights on, but 2025 proved that in Washington, the real court jesters aren't the comedians – they're the ones in robes, vetoing with a straight face. Case adjourned... for now. Stay tuned for the sequel: "Revenge of the Confirmations." Transcribed with a wink and a gavel bang.
Editorial comments and sarcasm expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer
