“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” — Thomas Jefferson
President Trump posted the following on social media on May 2025:
“No District Court Judge, or any judge, can assume the duties of the President of the United States.”
This is antithetical Jefferson’s quote.
No judge is trying to assume the duties of the United States President. The judiciary is only doing its duty under the Constitution.
In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the courts to declare laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional and therefore void, thus establishing the principal of judicial review. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the constitution is the supreme law, and Congress cannot pass laws that conflict with it.
The ruling solidified the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. The Constitution does not allow the expansion of the powers of any branch except in limited cases as stated in the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 attempting to expand the power of the Supreme Court conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore void.
The Rule of Law has been sacrosanct in the United States since our founding 249 years ago. Dictators come to power in many ways, but one commonality is to undermine the rule of law
Every President of the United States takes this oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Contrary to what we are being told today, the cabinet secretaries do not swear an oath to a person. They swear “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation of purpose of evasion…”
The core of these oaths is to uphold the Constitution, the Rule of Law, not to undermine the courts or to flaunt the miscarriage of justice. Other ways that an independent judiciary upholds the rule of law is by doing the following:
Protecting individual rights even in the face of popular opposition or political opposition.
Serving as a check on the executive and legislative branches by preventing them from abusing their power.
Helping to maintain trust in the legal system and keeping the overall stability of the democracy.
Helping to guarantee that legal disputes are resolved fairly and that justice is applied equally to all citizens; and
Impartially deciding cases by applying the law to the facts of each case.
Dictators do two things almost immediately: get rid of an independent judiciary and shut down a free press. No dictator wants an impartial judiciary that applies the law equally to all regardless of class or status, color, ethnicity or religion, or a press that will print the facts without fear of retribution.
When Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Benjamin Franklin on the last day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, what kind of government they had created, he responded,
“A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” Our democratic republic depends on the active involvement and informed participation of its citizens. Informed participation does not mean listening to or reading information only from people with whom you agree or from people with political bias.
Brett Kavanaugh said this during his Senate hearings: “I believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic.” He stated the truth. Now let’s see if he and his Supreme Court colleagues, as well as all the other members of the federal judiciary will abide by that truth.
Cyntha A. Baldwin is a former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice and served 16 years as a Pennsylvania County Court judge. The New Pittsburgh Courier originally published this commentary.
.