Given that the Supreme Court only considers roughly 80 cases per year, the radical lower court judges are proving every day that unless something is done to reform the way our political system erroneously views the power of the lower courts, any gains we secure from Supreme Court picks will largely be around the margins. This is especially critical as one litigator from the National Immigration Law Center said, “May a thousand litigation flowers bloom.” Even if we place six conservatives on the high court, their ability to manage a thousand forum-shopped and radically destructive lower court injunctions will be limited, under the prevailing system.

Protecting this country from an invasion of MS-13, dangerous drugs, and crime coming across the border is the most solemn job of the president. The lower courts are essentially creating a trap that will tie the president’s hands (assuming they are indeed tied by musings of lower court judges) for the remainder of his presidency and irrevocably release tens of thousands of potentially dangerous individuals into our communities at a massive cost to localities and doubling down on the very invasion that fueled the gang and drug crisis.

On Monday, the smug Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California ruled that, despite the public outcry over separating families and the implication of having to reinstate catch-and-release for the lawbreakers, kids cannot be detained with parents even in ICE holding facilities (as opposed to jails) for more than 20 days. But here’s the problem: Another California judge, Dana Sabraw, ruled that Trump can’t detain the parents while the kids are released. In other words, the tag-team of California judges are pushing catch-and-release on the entire country, even though 72 percent of family units cross into Texas, not California.

"It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt...to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate,” wrote a disingenuous Gee. Yup, somehow it is Trump who is trying to shift the burden to the judiciary! Actually, Dolly, we are asking you to stay the heck out of immigration and sovereignty, something the courts emphatically did for the first 200 years of the republic. Illegals should never have standing to dictate terms to American law enforcement, based on their “consent,” as Gee suggests. What about the consent of the American people? Remember, these people are always (except certain criminals) eligible to voluntarily depart with their children. Nobody is forcing them to come here, and nobody is forcing the court to do anything. Quite the opposite is true. The illegals and the judiciary are forcing their will on the American people in the ultimate violation of national property rights.

Amazingly, Gee has the insolence to dismiss the government’s logic as “tortured” when she is the same judge who, in 2015, dismissed the Obama administration’s concern that her order would lead to a border surge as “speculative at best" and "fear-mongering." Well, here we are dealing with an invasion precisely because of her 2015 order expanding Flores from unaccompanied minors to family units.

Dolly Gee has a history of violating national sovereignty and being overturned by the Supreme Court. She should be impeached.

And notice they are district judges within the Ninth Circuit, guaranteeing an automatic loss at the appellate level and ensuring that this grave danger continues for months and years. This is the ultimate legal crisis that the entire conservative legal movement should be fixated on, because it will not fundamentally change with SCOTUS picks, especially given that we are not picking justices fully in the mold of Clarence Thomas, who was the only justice to call a foul on the lower court judges and immigration. Even once we get relief from the Supreme Court after years of irrevocably releasing dangerous criminals and gangsters into our communities, the ACLU will just go back to the same judges with a slightly different claim and restart the cycle of death by one thousand forum-shopped lawsuits, as Thomas warned in the first round of “travel ban” litigation.

A right to jury trial for illegal sex offenders but not American ones

The fact that judges are ruling illegal alien kids can’t be separated while children of American criminals can is part of a growing pattern of illegals being treated better than Americans. Earlier this week, the local D.C. Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) ruled that a foreign national charged with touching a minor over her jeans is now entitled to a jury trial. For an American, that crime would not carry consequences serious enough to trigger a Sixth Amendment entitlement to a jury trial, but in the case of a foreign national, because such a conviction would likely lead to deportation, that renders the charge serious enough to warrant a jury trial.

Guess which Supreme Court case was cited in support of this opinion? Dimaya v. Sessions, wherein Gorsuch joined the four liberals to A) create a due process right against deportation and B) rule that deportation is a criminal punishment rather than an extension and consequence of sovereignty, as stated by the courts for over 120 years. As I warned at the time, that opinion has wide-ranging consequences, because now any criminal alien can cite deportation as a serious criminal punishment requiring the endless smorgasbord of real and judicially created due process. Hundreds of cases have already been remanded based on Dimaya.

In this case, as the dissent points out, non-citizens can now be entitled to jury trials for all petty offenses for which citizens might not be entitled. In this case, the Supreme Court pick was downright harmful rather than saving us from judicial Gomorrah. Welcome to the Orwellian conservative establishment legal fixes to our problems.

A right to come here and blame America for your pregnancy or miscarriage

There is nothing more irresponsible than for a pregnant mother to place herself in the hands of drug cartels and smugglers and cross the border under the harshest conditions imaginable. Yet the ACLU is now suing ICE on behalf of people who should never get standing because they are blaming the conditions of detention for their miscarriages. You heard that right. Either they demand abortions, or they demand better accommodations and blame ICE. Again, let’s remember they can always voluntarily depart. We have the concept of consent, property rights, and sovereignty mixed up here. But once again, given that the lawsuit was filed in California, the illegals will win.

There are dozens of other devastating cases that are paralyzing our sovereignty and security and have no legitimacy in law and the Constitution. Yet both political and legal movements regard the words of these judges as universally and exclusively binding over the president. There’s still the DACA case where illegal amnesty is still being handed out to 20,000 illegals, many of them with criminal records, all because of a lower court judge and the refusal of the Supreme Court to expeditiously dispose of the case. Meanwhile, we now know from documents obtained by Judicial Watch that many dangerous individuals have come in during this and the previous border surge brought on by judicial amnesty and stolen sovereignty.

There’s no way around this constitutional crisis confronting our republic. Either the executive branch refuses to abide by these lawless rulings or Congress must pass Dave Brat’s bill (H.R. 4927) reiterating that district courts lack the power to issue universal injunctions nationwide. Conservatives think they are winning back the judiciary through the Supreme Court vacancy, but they should heed the advice of Proverbs, 27:1: “Do not boast for tomorrow, for you do not know what the day will bear.” In this case, we know what the ACLU and lower courts will bear, and we are already losing.