Are activist judges overstepping their bounds? Congressman Jim Jordan appeared on “Rob Schmitt Tonight” on Newsmax to discuss his concerns about the judiciary and whether it’s being weaponized. Let’s dive into the key points he made.
Video Summary generated with Artificial Intelligence.
The Problem of “Activist Judges”
Jordan kicked things off by highlighting a fundamental issue: unelected judges making decisions that should be reserved for elected officials. He argued that when judges override the will of the people and the President, it undermines the very foundation of our system.
What exactly is an “activist judge?” It’s often used to describe a judge who seems to legislate from the bench, exceeding their authority to impose their own political views. For example, some might point to rulings on hot-button issues like immigration or environmental regulations as instances where judges have overstepped. The debate often boils down to whether a judge is interpreting the law or creating it.
Jordan also touched on the idea that some on the left seem to prefer decisions made by unelected officials. Think figures like Dr. Fauci during the pandemic or judges making controversial rulings. The concern is that these individuals aren’t accountable to the people, and their decisions can have far-reaching consequences without any democratic input. This raises questions about checks and balances.
Concerns About Judge Boseberg’s Case Assignments
A significant part of the discussion revolved around Judge Boseberg. Jordan pointed out a series of cases involving Boseberg that raise eyebrows:
- His role in the FISA court during the Trump campaign (learn more about the FISA court controversy).
- His handling of Kevin Kleinmith’s case.
- A case involving a gang member being brought back into the U.S.
- His assignment to the “Signal Gate” case against Secretary Hegsith.
These assignments prompted the Judiciary Committee to send a letter inquiring about the random assignment process. The worry? That there might be manipulation or bias at play, undermining the impartiality of the judiciary.
As Jordan put it, “There’s been concerns about, you know, like a judiciary that can, you know, weaponize itself.” A weaponized judiciary erodes public trust and leads to unfair application of the law. If people don’t believe they’ll receive a fair hearing, the entire system is at risk.
The Role of the Supreme Court
When should the Supreme Court step in? It’s a tricky question. Typically, the Supreme Court takes up cases that involve significant constitutional questions or conflicting rulings in lower courts. The appeals process exists to address errors or injustices at the lower levels.
Justice Roberts has stated that the proper course of action is to use appellate courts to challenge district court decisions. This highlights the importance of following established legal channels when concerns arise about judicial overreach.
Legislative Action and Potential Solutions
What can be done to address these concerns? The House has passed legislation aimed at limiting the scope of injunctions issued by federal district judges. The goal is to ensure that injunctions only apply to the parties in the case and the specific jurisdiction, not nationwide.
Interestingly, Justice Kagan has also spoken about the phenomenon of nationwide injunctions. This suggests there might be bipartisan support for reining in the power of district judges in this area.
If the bill passes the Senate and is signed by the President, it could significantly scale back the power of district judges. Time is of the essence, as these judicial actions are seen by some as deliberately stalling important work.
Tish James and Allegations of Hypocrisy
Tish James, the New York Attorney General, also came under scrutiny. James has a history of targeting Trump, even building her campaign around it. She recently launched a new lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming it’s an attack on public health.
As James stated, “This administration has taken a wreck ball to the Department of Health and Human Services.”
However, James is now facing allegations of hypocrisy. There are claims that she made false statements on documents and improperly claimed her primary residence was in Virginia.
These allegations are seen as ironic, given her past attacks on Trump. As Jordan said, “I don’t know that anybody takes her serious.” Some believe her continued attacks on Trump are politically motivated, driven by a need to maintain power and relevance.
Concluding Thoughts
Rep. Jordan’s appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight” raised important questions about the judiciary and the actions of figures like Tish James. Addressing these concerns is crucial to ensure fairness, accountability, and the rule of law. It’s about maintaining the integrity of our legal system and ensuring it serves the people, not political agendas.
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
Would there be any role for class-action lawsuits to use “lawfare” on these judicial activists? One of the many negative aspects of their actions forces the US government to spend our hard-earned tax dollars to support illegal activities such as harboring illegal aliens, keeping our home country more dangerous, prompts terroristic actions (Tesla terrorists), and more. As for the “due process” angle, those who entered illegally need to prove only one legal standard: “are you here illegally” and if the answer is no then out they go.