Amid his time in the White House, Barack Obama frequently abused the powers of the executive branch. Presently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is finding a way to guarantee that no president will have the capacity to abuse his power again the way Obama did. Sessions disclosed to Breitbart that the Department of Justice was ending the “executive branch legal activism” of the past organization, while likewise fighting the judicial activism of liberal judges.
“I think the department did become too political” under President Barack Obama, Sessions said. “Essentially, it was executive branch legal activism. They would take cases or regulations or statutes and expand or redefine the meaning of words in them to advance the agenda that they thought ought to be advanced — an agenda that often had zero chance of passing Congress, where the elected representatives sit.”
“So you have an agenda, and you can’t get Congress to pass it, so you use unelected regulatory officials and lawyers to draft regulations and enforcement policies that carry out a political agenda that the people don’t favor,” he proceeded. “And I think that was a factor in this past [presidential] election, and it was an issue that was known to a lot of business and legal experts. They saw this as a dangerous trend.”
Sessions cited to Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — which terminates March 5 — as an essential case of “executive branch legal activism.” The attorney general went ahead to excoriate the courts for keeping President Donald Trump from pulling back Obama’s policy.
“[President Obama] said repeatedly that it was not legal, he couldn’t do it. Congress had took up an issue and it failed to pass. So they just did it anyway,” he said. “But now when we tried … to withdraw the DACA policy … we’ve been sued and judges have stopped simple withdrawal of the policy.”
Sessions clarified that the biggest surprise” of his tenure as Attorney General “has been the plethora of [cases] in which a single sitting federal judge — one federal judge out of 600 some-odd — for insubstantial reasons, issues an injunction that bars the executive branch of the government from protecting people, and from being able to fulfill the function for which the chief executive was elected to fulfill.”
He said that the executive branch couldn’t go about as a “coequal” branch of government on the off chance that it needed to “gain approval of every one of 600 federal judges to carry out the policies [the President] was elected to do.”
What do you think about this? Do not hesitate and write your thoughts in the comment section below.