Having judges who will interpret the law as written instead of what they would prefer laws to be is paramount for the preservation of our republic. Thus, it’s no wonder that Democrats, who advocate for activist judges to turn the judiciary into what their party’s founder, Thomas Jefferson, called the “despotic branch,” are voting against the nominees of President Donald Trump in record numbers. In fact, The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas Jipping reports, “Trump’s 91 judges have received more negative confirmation votes than the 2,653 judges confirmed to the same courts during the entire 20th century combined.”

Two cases this week once again highlight how important the judiciary can be.

First, the Supreme Court overturned yet another Ninth Circuit Court ruling, this time dealing Trump a win on immigration. In Nielsen v. Preap, which The Wall Street Journal editorial board called “an immigration case that turned on a clear-cut question of statutory interpretation,” the High Court’s “5-4 conservative majority read the law as it was written.” In short, The Washington Times explains, “Immigrants living in the U.S. with serious criminal records can be held without bail while awaiting deportation even if ICE didn’t immediately pick them up when they were released from prison or jail.” Why would ICE not immediately pick them up? The nation is littered with “sanctuary” cities and even states, where local authorities are often not permitted to communicate with ICE.

Naturally, leftists are outraged both at the detention itself and the Supreme Court’s (correct) stamp of approval. But if it were President Hillary Clinton now in office, this wouldn’t have even been a case. Moreover, two Supreme Court justices would have been her picks, not Trump’s.

Second, “A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that the Interior Department violated federal law by failing to take into account the climate impact of its oil and gas leasing in the West,” reports The Washington Post. “The decision by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of Washington marks the first time the Trump administration has been held to account for the climate impact of its energy-dominance agenda, and it could have sweeping implications for the president’s plan to boost fossil fuel production across the country.”

Did we say “reports”? We meant “editorialized.” In a news story.

The ruling temporarily blocks drilling on about 300,000 acres of land in Wyoming until the Trump administration does its climate homework. All oil and gas drilling on federal lands — of which the Wyoming land is but a tiny part — accounts for something in the neighborhood of 10% of total U.S. carbon output. That is to say Contreras, an Obama judge, blocked drilling on account of emissions roughly equivalent to a few cow farts. This isn’t about, as Contreras opined, “the national, cumulative nature of climate change.” It’s about judicial overreach, trampling the law, and obstructing Trump.

Once again, we see how critical it is to nominate and appoint judges who will uphold the Rule of Law.