The U.S. government comprises three coequal branches, each imbued with mechanisms to regulate the other.

Last November, when the Electoral College (not a majority of voters) elevated Donald Trump to the presidency, many wondered how markedly our society would change. Fifty weeks in, our institutions hold firm against him -- most notably, the judiciary.

A reality television star now leads the executive. A man prone to launching personal insults on Twitter. Hundreds of jelly-spined Republicans who quake in fear of his wrath, but privately whisper their condemnations to reporters in corridors on the condition of anonymity constitute the legisative. But the judiciary, time and again, openly denounces his attempts to buck the Constitution and remake us in his image.

Trump has hurled slings and arrows at federal judges who answer -- not to him -- but to the U.S. Constitution and legal precedent. And he has voiced his displeasure: federal judges in Indiana, California and Hawaii all turned the other cheek to faithfully apply the laws they are duty-bound to interpret.

Providing life tenure to federal judges is a source of contentious debate. While some view it as insulating a class of individuals from accountability, given our present state of affairs, I rest easier knowing that a reality television star cannot dismiss federal judges who dare to place sound legal reasoning above his Fox News approval rating. The judiciary’s steadfastness in the face of Trump’s blustery rhetoric suggests that, in addition to being blind, it may also, thankfully, be deaf, too.

Storm Larson, La Crosse

6
0
3
0
14