Judge William Orrick’s deep partisan history highlights how unelected judicial elites undermine voter authority, exposing the hidden machinery of a fake democracy.

Democracy relies on the belief that the will of the people is supreme. Yet beneath the surface, an unelected network of deep state power brokers — embedded within the judiciary — has corrupted the system from within, sidelining the voters they claim to serve.

The case of U.S. District Judge William Orrick stands as a revealing example. Appointed by President Barack Obama in 2013, Orrick’s political activities prior to his nomination raise serious questions about judicial neutrality. According to official federal records, Orrick personally donated over one hundred thirteen thousand six hundred dollars to Democratic candidates and political committees. His financial support was not incidental; it was strategic and extensive.

In 2008, Orrick contributed thirty thousand eight hundred dollars to the Obama Victory Fund and raised another two hundred thousand dollars through political bundling — a practice reserved for elite insiders trusted to deliver major fundraising hauls. Beyond Barack Obama, his beneficiaries included the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, with more than fifty-three thousand five hundred dollars donated to the party’s infrastructure alone.

Orrick’s role as a political activist was not limited to writing checks. He co-chaired “Lawyers for Kerry” during John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, led “Lawyers for Obama” in 2008, and personally introduced Kamala Harris at major fundraising events. His long-standing ties to the Democratic Party placed him deep within the political apparatus well before his judicial appointment.

These connections reveal a critical flaw in the system: a fake democracy in which unelected judges, closely tied to partisan power structures, exercise authority far beyond their constitutional mandate. Instead of serving as impartial defenders of law and liberty, these figures wield superpower — issuing rulings that override laws, halt executive actions, and eliminate the voices of tens of millions of voters with a single court order.

In 2017, Judge Orrick issued a nationwide injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities. Critics argue that this decision illustrates how unelected judges now possess unchecked authority to paralyze duly elected governments. These rulings, made by individuals with undisclosed political loyalties, operate without electoral accountability, undermining the very foundation of democratic governance.

This phenomenon is not isolated to the United States. Across many modern democracies, judicial branches have evolved into extensions of entrenched political elites. In these systems, voters may cast ballots, but unelected officials — deeply tied to ideological factions — determine the ultimate direction of national policy. The people are given the illusion of control, while real power increasingly concentrates in the hands of an insulated, unaccountable elite.

Calls for sweeping reform are growing. Among the proposals are bans on political fundraising by future judicial nominees, stricter transparency requirements about political histories, and the curtailing of judicial powers to issue broad, national injunctions affecting entire executive agendas.

The example of Judge William Orrick lays bare a system corrupted from within — a system where unelected judges, backed by political machinery, hijack democracy against the will of the people. Without urgent reform, the gap between public will and institutional power risks widening even further, leaving voters sidelined in a system that only pretends to be democratic.