By John A. Tures, Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College

As the Trump Administration has its showdown with the American judicial system, it’s worth evaluating several examples where the judicial and executive branches of government clashed. From the Old Testament to FDR’s plans, to Middle East cases to surveys of Americans, this article shows why respect for judges is so important. Leaders who cross judges do so at their political peril.

Back in 2018, I wrote a column for the Savannah Morning News, based on a study I did with my Bible Study class. We found that Biblical judges were far more likely to do a good job than the kings that followed. Unlike the good judges, more than a majority of kings “Did evil in the sight of the Lord” as we unfortunately learned, much like the first one Saul, who started as a decent person, but got jealous of David.

“Of the 40 Israeli and Judean kings between David and the exile of the Jewish people, there were 30 evil kings and 10 good ones. As for the results, the tribes of Israel were carried off by the Assyrians, never to be seen again. The Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and dragged off the Jews in chains into exile. Even after the Jewish people returned home, thanks to God and an assist to the Persians, we had the Herod kings, butchering babies in Bethlehem or mocking Jesus before turning him over to the Romans for his torture and execution.” We also found that the good ones had major flaws too.

In the Middle East, crossing judges can be bad politics. Israel was brought to its knees by the power-hungry decision of Benjamin Netanyahu to control his county’s judiciary, perhaps a way to head off his potential legal troubles over possible corruption charges. As a result of the massive protests against this power-grab, Israel was not prepared for the Hamas attacks. As Israel’s parliament brings the plan back, the countrywide protests are coming back as well.

In Egypt, the post-Mubarak Muslim Brotherhood regime tried to emasculate their country’s judges. It led to the ouster of their leader Morsi, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Problems have occurred in America too. Frustrated by the Supreme Court striking down his plan, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to get even with the justices. His legislative allies introduced the “Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1938,” known today as the “court-packing plan,” which dealt with adding justices and retirement ages. The plan went nowhere, and the following year, Democrats lost 72 members of the House of Representatives, several Senate seats, and 13 governors, after Democratic Party landslides of 1932, 1934, and 1936. Some of that was due to internal battles in primaries, but the court-packing plan has also been cited as a reason for the Democratic disaster.

Will Trump face a similar political price for trying to bully and even sidestep or oust the judiciary? Polls show that will be the case.

“A broad majority of Americans believe the U.S. president should always obey federal court rulings, even as President Donald Trump’s administration criticizes judges who pause his efforts to swiftly remake the government, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found,” USA Today reports. “The three-day survey, which closed on Sunday, found that 82% of respondents – including majorities of Democrats and Republicans – agreed with a statement that the ‘president of the United States should obey federal court rulings even if the president does not want to.’”

With far less than 20% supporting him on circumventing courts, Trump could find the same headaches as FDR, Netanyahu, the Muslim Brotherhood, or even the Israelites of the Bible who went against judges.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.