Writes Adam Liptak, at the NYT.
Liptak was reminded of something the Chief said in 2018, "after Mr. Trump called a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy 'an Obama judge'": "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
Of course, that doesn't stop the NYT from telling us the name of the President who appointed the federal judges whose names arise in the news. Trump has a blunt way of talking, which in 2018, had him saying "an Obama judge." (The NYT might write, "a judge appointed by President Obama.") It's 2025 now, and Trump says "Radical Left Lunatic."
And when you push him to tone it down — and I suspect you won't apply the same standard when a Democrat decries a "right-wing judge" — I have to give the post my "civility bullshit" tag.
But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly.
Can confirm.
— Rep. Eli Crane (@RepEliCrane) March 18, 2025
Activist judges are weaponizing the judicial system to jam up the elected President of the United States for partisan purposes.
Nothing about that is normal. https://t.co/MkNGgiAgNj
Posts
158 comments:
Prof: “we don’t impeach judges for deciding cases terriblly.”
We also don’t impeach presidents for making diplomatic phone calls we don’t like.
Yet we did.
When the standard changes, Professor, I change my behavior. What do you do?
JSM
The impeachment power is one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution. What is or is not an appropriate use of it is for Congress, watched by the public, to decide. Roberts needs to stay in his lane.
I thought the new standard was that we impeach people we do not like. It is, as they say, performative.
“The impeachment power is one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution.”
“High crimes and misdemeanors" is the standard. Not "ideological disagreement". Understandably for fascists and authoritarians there is no distinction between "ideological disagreement" and "a high crime".
However, for people who actually value the US Constitution and its history, we recognize the difference.
The supreme irony in all of this is that the current Court is heavily skewed ideologically towards the right. The fact that the right is still whining about a constraint on power, underscores the difference between pluralism and totalitarianism.
Right wing judge and radical left lunatic are not comparable descriptions. The latter is not blunt speaking. It's old age decline.
Do we impeach judges who are politically motivated to destroy a sitting President. Judges who have spouses or relatives who receive money and favors from people and institutions that they are ruling on?
Trump is using his voice to highlight just how corrupt our judicial system is, and has been for decades.
I grew up respecting the legal system. My interactions, and others I know, have persuaded me that the law is for wealthy people. Honest working people understand that, for the most part, the legal system should be avoided at all costs.
"What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
Imagine a normal person's reaction when juxtaposing this comment with the actions of, say, Judge Emmet Sullivan in the matter of General Michael Flynn. Of, those of Judge Boasberg, around that time, deciding FISA court matters. Even NPR was asking questions.
Roberts did not field a credible characterization.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges..."
But we do have judges whose daughters happen to work for NGOs giving free legal advice to criminal illegal aliens. Those are ok I guess.
Roberts is clearly wrong. The Supreme Court had said/ruled that the President enjoys immunity, total and absolute.
Unelected Roberts needs to be impeached for criticizing Trump.
For Althouse readers: That was satire. 😉
"But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly."
Then when do we impeach judges? Seems like the answer is never, as they are above the law. Much like Congress. Especially if they are Democrats or Uniparty
People have practically been begging Roberts to weigh in on lower-court judges issuing nationwide injunctions that hamstring the president’s agenda and when he finally obliges, this is his statement?!?
Do calls for impeachment of this judge rise from "deciding cases poorly," or his attempted abuse of power for political purposes?
"We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly."
I'm not anywhere close to your level of erudition and practical experience regarding the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure that we impeach judges for any reason that the necessary majority of the House and the Senate decide is sufficient.
If the public doesn't like that reason for impeachment, then the public will change the House and the Senate.
I'm old enough to remember when the Supreme's wouldn't be caught dead playing politics like this...
"For Althouse readers: That was satire. 😉"
Ah! Yes! Satire! For my part, Kak, I appreciated it merely for the brevity.
Too much energy being spent on impeachment threats, which have zero chance at ever making it through the congress. Calls for impeachment due to a contested decision only makes the judge look like a sympathetic figure to many who are not paying close attention.
Demand for recusal, which I understand has been sought on appeal by DOJ counsel, is the appropriate response, as this judge has massive conflicts of interest. One, there is a actual chance of that happening, and two, it exposes him for the slimy partisan hack that he clearly is.
Presidents are allowed to politic under our system. Roberts should shut his yap...
I wonder how often a lawyer has told Trump (or his agent) there are no grounds to move for disqualification.
Where is it written in the Constitution that it is the place of the SCOTUS to police Trump's rhetoric?
Roberts is unconvincing because he lives in a fantasy world. It would be nice if impeachment was only used when a person is guilty of crimes, but the Vindiman crew put that away. Impeachment is now an act of censure for your political stances. Roberts is pretty dumb, he can’t do a simple Anova and discover that the President who appointed a judge is a statistically significant factor in outcomes.
But we are fine, if a judge severely abuses a citizen in court, just wait a few years and it might get reversed, if the defendant can afford to pay a million dollars in legal fees.
Remember when we used to watch the Presidential address to Congress and everyone except the judiciary would stand and cheer or boo and hiss? We should just separate them by party now. Who we kidding?
"Right wing judge and radical left lunatic are not comparable descriptions."
You jest. For the Left, the former carries exactly the same odium as the latter does for the conservatives.
If a judge makes a ruling that results in millions of unaccountable USAID dollars to flow to organizations that his spouse controls, well, sorry Mr "Just Us" but that's plenty of grounds for impeachment.
Ann: If a judge, in this case a district judge, orders to immediately STOP and reverse execution of presidential power (that is my view on this matter) - and this is found to be an improper order by that judge - why wouldn't the expectation be potential impeachment?
What do you see as the appropriate check on judicial over-reach in this manner? It can't be purely the power of appeal - that is too slow, costly, and not a deterrent against terrible decisions, is it not?
I'm not saying this deserves impeachment, but I am saying I can see the case that such a decision - given it's implications - could subsequently be deemed to deserve penalty up to and including impeachment if it's found to be fundamentally wrong and judicial overreach well into the executives power.
Without that check on judicial power, then the judicial itself is not in balance with the executive.
High and mightiness from our legal potentates impresses me not at all. Professional contact with the legal system that I have had over years of business work has taught me that it is a sewer to avoid at all cost.
Please refer to this:
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1901726499423613150?s=19
Quayle said...Ah! Yes! Satire! For my part, Kak, I appreciated it merely for the brevity.
Funny, I don’t read Kak’s posts as I filed him under “life’s too short” a long time ago, but he tricked me into reading this one by making it brief, so I didn’t notice the author until it was too late.
"Presidents are allowed to politic under our system...."
Roberts just called a strike on Trump. That's his job.
But maybe calling a Strike when you're standing in the team's dugout isn't exactly the job.
But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly.
Why not?
If a "Judge" consistently makes a mockery of the law and commit illegal act from the bench what recourse do we have?
There is absolutely no world where this piece of shit has the authority to intervene in this case on any level.
Kakistocracy said...
“The impeachment power is one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution.”
“High crimes and misdemeanors" is the standard.
------
Is that true? I thought it was a term of good behavior.
"We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly."
Maybe not the first few times it happens. We wait for correction from the higher courts. Throughout Trump 45 our frustration with judicial overreach increased. Roberts let it fester.
Then we watched Biden with school loan forgiveness ignore the court completely. If Roberts had anything to say, it was so mild it disappeared.
Roberts is 8 years late on this issue. He'd better ramp up quickly if he wants to be heard.
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
This would seem to encompass the actions of these judges. Impeachment would seem appropriate.
But we can impeach judges for deciding cases corruptly.
The "high crimes and misdemeanors" language is from Article II. The standard for judges is that they shall hold their offices during good behavior. Using impeachment to police separation of powers would be a big and dangerous step which I don't think needs to be taken now-- but the call is Congress' to make.
Kakistocracy - as others mentioned and/or alluded - it's not our job to set the standard. It is our job to obey the standard. It used to be appointing federal judges required (IIRC) 60 senators. Harry Reid wanted to jam as many as possible in so he aborted the filibuster and said no - 50+1. Republicans warned him they would not always be in power but he ignored them. Which ultimately let to Trump appointing a massive number of federal judges AND Supreme Court justices. They cried foul and said "No we only meant to do it for federal judges, not SC!" And every honest person recognized that was not true at all. Once they broke the dam the water came.
It's exactly the same with impeachment and Roberts is a fool. Once impeachment was for high crimes and misdemeanors and so on. The Democrats changed it to "we don't like you" is now the sole criterion for impeachment. That's fine. We didn't make the rule. They did. But that's the rule. So impeachment is for anything you don't like.
Don't blame conservatives. Blame Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi for this.
"But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly."
However, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service:
"Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior.
Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:
(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain."
Impeachment and Removal
"We also don’t impeach presidents for making diplomatic phone calls we don’t like. Yet we did...."
Every impeachment of a President has been a mistake.
Gosh ! Intellectual discussions and challenges on policy ! What a refreshing change. Where have the press been, for the past 4 years, one wonders..... If only there had been questions asked, with answers demanded....
"We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly."
Amen. Lots of silly talk in the comments but I doubt that any of it comes from lawyers who actually appear in these courts. It's certainly true that Dems have their favorite venues and judges, and of course Reps have theirs too. Forum shopping is the norm for both sides. And no one really believes that a judge's background and legal philosophy aren't factors that influence how the judge ultimately addresses politically controversial cases. But you don't here much complaint about that reality except when a ruling goes against their preferred outcome. For those cheering on the idea of impeaching a judge based on a ruling, it pays to remember that the same thing was said about, e.g., the judges who enjoined Biden's student debt policy or affirmative action and DEI policies. It's all just a case of whose ox is getting gored.
This legal stuff is not just an intellectual exercise, do people know what the stupidity of the system does to peoples lives? People having heart attacks and health disasters due to the stress of waiting years to get an answer from the beast that is law?
Ok I know I have overposted.
'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.'"
So Roberts is saying the appeal process will resolve this dispute? What happens if the appeal process doesn't resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of a co-equal branch of government? Can we use the impeachment process then?
If we don't impeach judges for abusing their authority as judges, what's the remedy for judicial abuses? I suspect you're not going to like the answer.
Kakistocracy said...
Roberts is clearly wrong. The Supreme Court had said/ruled that the President enjoys immunity, total and absolute.
Unelected Roberts needs to be impeached for criticizing Trump.
For Althouse readers: That was satire. 😉
3/18/25, 12:01 PM
To be clear, the decision is that the President is personally immune for official actions of the office. That should be obvious to every honest person. Not for his personal actions. I've seen lefty comments that are either ignorant or lies that "he can just assassinate his political opponents and he's immune!" These are known as idiots and liars.
If we're talking about Trump, and not Trump's policies, Trump is losing.
Ann Althouse said...
"We also don’t impeach presidents for making diplomatic phone calls we don’t like. Yet we did...."
Every impeachment of a President has been a mistake.
Is this your opinion because you don't think lying under oath is a high crime or misdemeanor?
For more than two centuries, it has been established that judicial officers should not publicly comment on matters that are not before them, but are likely to be in the future. Who's breaking with tradition, Mr. Chief Justice?
Impeachment isn't needed to solve this issue. Other than the Supreme Court, all other Federal Courts are created by Congressional power and can be modified, regulated or even discarded by Congress.
All it takes to rein in these judges is a Congressional Bill simply disallowing them from issuing nationwide orders.
CJinPA said...
If we're talking about Trump, and not Trump's policies, Trump is losing.
Welp. Trump is always losing for some people.
In this case we have an Obama judge fighting to protect Venezuelan Murderer/Rapists and Trump trying to do what he campaigned on by deporting these scum bags.
If you read the MSM sources Ann is stuck on you could fool yourself into thinking Trump is losing. If you branch out a bit further you will find out most people think Trump is not deporting people fast enough.
"We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly."
Who answers to judges being wrong? How would this statement hold up to any other profession?
What *do* we do with judges who are wrong? It seems that we have an appeals process - which is deliberately designed to impede any challenge to wrongdoing - while the judge pronouncing judgement gets off 'scott free'.
Further, in these media cases, there's no evidence provided just Judger says this because Trump did that'.
Violent illegal immigrants should not be deported because a judge says so? Probably because the ACLU says so? People have become too complacent about allowing unvetted foreigners stay in this country.
The Chief Judge of the DC Circuit should tell Boasberg to recuse himself because of his wife and daughter or he will be removed from the case.
After what that NY state judge did to him, I cut Trump some slack.
Ann Althouse said...
"We also don’t impeach presidents for making diplomatic phone calls we don’t like. Yet we did...."
Every impeachment of a President has been a mistake.
3/18/25, 12:20 PM
Yet these seem to be the rules we live by, now, in the political arena.
I would prefer judges to not ignore precedent like Boasberg is doing, unless he believes the ruling in Ludecke v. Watkins was incorrect and wishes that precedent to be relitigated and overturned by the Supreme Court. He has made no indication that that is the case; rather, he gives every appearance of using his power as a federal judge to oppose and thwart the current administration politically, full stop. The repeated use of TROs by multiple federal district court judges, including ex parte TROs, rather than issuing preliminary injunctions also gives every appearance of being a ploy to deny the administration its due process rights. Should that kind of conduct be impeachable? What is the remedy? The regular appeals process?
In my opinion, the general principles behind Justice Jackson's famous speech "The Federal Prosecutor" also apply to judges. Also in my opinion, judges like Boasberg are acting contrary to those principles. And the time lost in remediating their behavior through the appeals process can never be regained, which is at least half the point of that behavior. So what is the remedy? Hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing? Impeachments? Misconduct complaints? "Non-acquiescence"?
This all could have been avoided if certain federal judges had acted properly in the first place. Think the administration is acting unlawfully? Fine. Hold a full hearing and issue a preliminary injunction. State the legal reasoning fully and frankly. The high-handed, unfair conduct of judges like Boasberg is both adding fuel to the fire, and igniting it.
We here all know the only remedy for a political hack judiciary is for it to be acting on behalf of Republicans...
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges..."
And yet, we can guess how any judge is going to rule on controversial cases with a very high degree of precision based on who nominated them to the bench. Please explain that Mr. Chief Justice, because that's completely opposite of your assertion.
We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly.
...what's this we stuff? Given the recent frequency I'm okay if we make a few more mistakes...
"we don’t impeach judges for deciding cases terribly" Maybe there should be a three strikes and you're out clause for all judicial appointments.
Imbecile John Roberts really thinks President Trump is going to take the appellate review course with the thousands of drone judges on the federal circuit. There is a real chance the Roberts Court is going to lose its power and see Marbury vs. Madison repealed. At gunpoint.
Modern impeachment is a political stunt. Most people understand that, given that there is no chance of success. Trump should declare publicly that he has no intention of following judicial orders contradicting interpretations of law by Executive Department lawyers and will pardon administration officials held in contempt for disobeying. Perhaps that will get the Chief off his ass.
Kakistocracy, I believe Althouse readers already know what is and is not satire. They also know what lousy satire is.
Impeachment is the constitutionally mandated way to get rid of a judge. The standard of high crime and misdemeanor is wide enough to drive an aircraft carrier through it.
I think the most disgusting thing about the judiciary is there opinion that they themselves are objective, above it all. They're so impressed with themselves they have to be bowed down to people are not allowed to have contempt for them while they walk through the raindrops and never get wet.
Prof: “ Every impeachment of a President has been a mistake.”
Could you elaborate wrt Nixon? Yes, I realize he was not actually impeached. But the articles were prepared and the votes were supposedly there.
No agenda - just interested in your take on it as an adult of the time (I was in elementary school), as well as how your view may have changed over the years.
JSM
"Judge" Boasberg's daughter works at a 501C3 that provides advocacy services for Illegal Aliens.
I know. Shocking. Completely unexpected.
Oh, and 76% of the money that "Partners for Justice" received was from Federal grants.
Still think that impeachment is not appropriate Ann?
When you step back and try to see what's happening from a high vantage, it appears that those who hold judicial power are planning to assert those rights to their poorly defined limit, and the only way they have to define that limit is to ignore the limit, forcing others to make decisions they would rather not have to make. Now we get to find out if Alex Bickel knew what he was talking about when he called it the "least dangerous branch".
The variety of tests for constitutionality of Congressional laws might be of use to the judiciary here. A law is often considered to pass constitutional muster if it has a rational basis, a purpose that the law fulfills which does not infringe on individual rights. In closer cases of infringement, an intermediate review might see the law as having a rational basis and be narrow enough that the purpose fulfilled justifies any fringe infringement, so to speak (IANAL, TG!). And where infringement seems real, a strict review of the narrow applicability of the law for an important purpose is weighed against the history and wording of the constitution.
So, again, IANAL, that's my layman's understanding of courts deciding if laws pass muster. Do Trump's actions pass muster? Has he severely infringed the rights of the noncitizens, adjudicated criminals one and all, sent packing? Or has he maintained the rights of the citizenry to not have those criminals imposed upon society? Even strict scrutiny might tell the judges, were they deciding honestly, that further hearings were needed before deciding anything, and that the petitioners might have a hell of a lot to prove to win their cases.
So I say, yes, the judges are pulling decisions out their asses to oppose Trump, not basing their decisions on full information and the law, but rather deciding ideologically.
doctrev said...
Imbecile John Roberts really thinks President Trump is going to take the appellate review course with the thousands of drone judges on the federal circuit. There is a real chance the Roberts Court is going to lose its power and see Marbury vs. Madison repealed. At gunpoint.
I agree with this.
I do not think there is a more unpopular political figure in the country than John Roberts. He is completely lacking a soul or any identifiable principle. On the Top 5 most dishonest persons in Washington DC.
I don't think the DC establishment understands how close they are to their forceful removal from power.
Trump is the best deal they are going to get at this point. The one who comes after Trump will not be nearly as nice.
And when you push him to tone it down — and I suspect you won't apply the same standard when a Democrat decries a "right-wing judge"
Well of course not, "right-wing judge" is hardly as unhinged and insulting as "Radical Left Wing Lunatic".
Has he severely infringed the rights of the noncitizens, adjudicated criminals one and all, sent packing?
I'm sorry, I missed where these deportees were determined to be "adjudicated criminals". You are just making shit up.
We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly.
...it sure looks like we take a stab at it, though...
That's what the appellate courts are for says Roberts. Well then Chief Justice, take away the ability of D/C judges to issue injuctions. Let them have a hearing, let everyone make their case, let the D/C Judge make their decision, let the POTUS appeal, and then the cases can then get decided. And THEN the courts can take action.
In the early 1970s when I moved from working as a newbie at the SEC in DC to a Wall Street law firm (with offices actually on Wall Street) there were still law partners and investment bankers who thought of themselves as gentlemen first, and lawyers or bankers second. Those days are so far gone it is hard to even believe they once existed. But that sense of self helped hold that world together. We live in a new world now. If repeated activism by a judge with repeated disregard of the law and the constitution does not qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor, what is the remedy? If this pressure cooker continues to boil without release, what happens when the walls of the pot can no longer contain it.
Roberts ride the rescue. LOL. He was quite silent when Judge Cannon was getting trashed and threatened. Did he ever push back against Schumer and his threats to "Reap the Whirlwind".
Roberts reminds me of Bush, who kept silent for 8 years under Obama, but suddenly decided that Trump needed to scolded. No public criticism by a ex-POTUS suddenly went out the door.
I suspect that you'd talk to Robert privately, he'd agreed completely with Luttigg regarding Trump. IOW, Roberts is just another Uniparty Trump hating "Life long Republican"
Judges need to be impeached, because the SCOTUS and Roberts refuse to do their jobs. If all the judges - including the 5 on the SCOTUS - believe in judicial Supremeacy, the congress and POTUS have to rein them in. Not sit around and wait for the judges to come to their senses.
BTW, I wish people on the Right would just stick up for rule of law and the constitution, and attack the leftwing judges who do neither. Instead they're always blustering and doing concern trolling. Oh my, this wont end well. Oh my, we'll be in trouble if this isn't taken care of. Oh my, I"m so concerned.
Leftwing judges are usnig their power to the limit. Elect a Demcorat Senate and they use their power to the limit. Elect a Democrat POTUs and they use their power to the limit. Are Republicans and conservatives ever going to catch on, or will they continue to refuse to see the pattern?
I'm questioning how the Plaintiffs were able to show irreparable harm. DHS can always fly them back or allow them back in if they present themselves.
TickTock: "...with offices actually on Wall Street..."
Carter Ledyard & Milburn? Just wondering.
Impeachment is a course of action provided for in the Constitution. If Judge Roberts wants to head off the need to use such harsh methods; then he should light a fire under the appellant process to stop bad rulings.
As for Boasberg, like Merchan (who is a state level, I understand, there is a family conflict of interest related to the ruling. When Democrats called for impeaching Thomas for vacationing with a friend; Roberts didn't seem to be bothered.
I can't help wondering if the Chief was motivated by POTUS's inappropriate exchange caught on camera at the State of the Union. Trump afterwards claimed he was thanking for the swearing in ceremony at the Inauguration, transparent bs.
Only 2 months in and the Chief Justice is already having to defend the judiciary.
It's a low bar to clear, but Roberts cleared it.
(i.e. defending an institution, of which Roberts is the chief officer.)
Can a judge be impeached for lack of judicial temperament? At what point does a judge get things so consistently wrong - and in one direction - that the judge simply needs to be removed?
I don't think it's something to crow about is it, that in this country federal judges aren't impeached for incompetence (aka deciding cases terribly). I know Trump is Hitler but it reminds me more of Stalin as in how many divisions does he have, that is, what's Boasberg going to do...send his clerk up to the White House to wave papers around in a menacing fashion?
John Roberts, he's a real beacon of moral rectitude.
Do Trump’s words make it harder or easier for the high court to curtail single justice, nation-wide restraining orders on the executive?
Hopefully, this signals Roberts must think he has to criticize Trump’s rhetoric in order to have the legitimacy to curtail the on-going abuse by district court judges.
Let us all join in with the city council of Fort Meyers FLA in response to cooperating with the enforcement of immigration law.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1902048097179472375
Call the WAAAAAAAmbulance.
"Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Trump administration would “absolutely” continue to remove Venezuelan immigrants on deportation flights despite a ruling from a federal judge ordering them to pause their efforts. "
"“You know, this one federal judge again thinks he can control foreign policy for the entire country, and he cannot,” the attorney general said."
Gonna be hard to enforce a contempt decree.
For those wishing to comment on this matter, I highly recommend reading the TRO, the memo in support, and Trump's March 15 invocation of the Alien Enemies Act on the white house website. I'll call out one of the relevant sections of the law, now 21 USC 50 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21):
“[w]henever there is a declared war between the United
States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated,
attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,
and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the
hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the
United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained,secured, and removed as alien enemies..."
Trump is shown as publcily announcing his intent to use this act on September 20, 2024 for this purpose. He is then elected. His admin carefully documents in February Venezuela as a failed narco-state and Tren de Aragua as a narco-terrorist organization directed by the state government of Venezuela. He then uses the AEA/21 USC 50 as the legal grounds for executing his power.
The TRO itself is a petition for the judge to immediately halt deportation given it was happening that night. The judge ordered the deportation paused for 14 days to give time for both parties. I would say the petition was....one-sided to say the least. So this creates precedent for Judges to halt executive actions related to foreign aliens on the basis of one-sided petitions....that seems unwise.
Trump's invocation of the act itself is pretty comprehensive and well laid out. It lays out the government sponsorship, the connection to Tren De Aragua, and what the executive claims they are doing in the U.S. as well as the basis for deportation.
The real questions are:
- Are these individuals Tren de Aragua?
- Is Tren de Aragua in the U.S. at the behest of the Venezuelan government for the purposes of criminal activity?
If the answer is yes and yes, this is pretty clear cut.
And for what it's worth, I'd swap "Tren de Aragua" with "Al Qaeda" and ask if people would be acting the same way when testing this.
I bet the judge and the ACLU would NOT be acting this way for Al Qaeda at this time.
If it is indeed non-justiciable then the judge is knowingly issuing unlawful orders for a reason other than "justice" and the fucking Chief Justice should climb down from his high horse and address the problem. The judges overstepping their authority IS a problem, not the complaints about them.
Hey CJ Roberts: That "Constitutional Crisis you've been warned about? It's here!"
Go die on that hill, Frederico!
People have practically been begging Roberts to weigh in on lower-court judges issuing nationwide injunctions that hamstring the president’s agenda and when he finally obliges, this is his statement?!?
Yeah, that bears repeating.
“Radical Left Wing Lunatic" isn’t “unhinged” or “insulting”.
In this particular case, it is spot on. I would only add “ethically compromised”.
Begley said, "The Chief Judge of the DC Circuit should tell Boasberg to recuse himself because of his wife and daughter or he will be removed from the case."
The problem is that Boasberg is the chief judge of the DC Circuit and he's disinclined to take your advice. That's why we were hoping against all experience that CJ Roberts would pull his head out and do the right thing for a change.
And for what it's worth, I'd swap "Tren de Aragua" with "Al Qaeda" and ask if people would be acting the same way when testing this.
[sigh] The same gaggle of pro-bono white-shoe attorneys are representing these gangsters, the same that is, that ALSO represented the Al Queda terrorists at Gitmo. The Republican president changes but their game remains the same.
Are these individuals Tren de Aragua?
The tattoos seem like confessions.
Sean Davis says:
"John Roberts can’t keep his own court’s clerks from illegally releasing decisions—an act that nearly led to the assassination of two of his own colleagues—but he’s going to lecture Trump on what he can and can’t post on Truth Social?"
Sadly - Judge Roberts appears he is in line with radical leftist judges.
That is bad news for our nation.
Coleridge, writing an op-ed in the early 1800s, said that a conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view.
Or its lack, owing to not hoisting.
The Roberts court will be remembered as the court where conventions were done away with.
Newt Gingrich
@newtgingrich
"If Chief Justice Roberts wants to minimize attacks on out of control appointed leftwing district court judges abusing their role and claiming to be able to overrule the elected President of the United States on management details that are clearly within his role as defined by the Constitution and the Federalist Papers then he should intervene and overrule these absurd power grabs. The Chief Justice can defend the Court by overruling bad judges before the Executive and Legislative Branches start acting against them. The burden is on the Chief Justice not the President."
Is justice Roberts compromised? Is he the new Kristol of the court?
The thing about conventions is that the law cannot found itself. It depends on unwritten conventions that correlate with agreement. Ignore a convention and you lose agreement, and the law can't recover from that using the law. The system can only restore agreement to enable resumption of the law.
I can't recall a more useless Chief Justice than Roberts. Just a complete and total waste of space.
The unspoken rule from the cocktail club:
You must show restraint while the corrupt left f*cks you over.
I have practiced law for 54 years. And every lawyer knows that 75% of Federal Judges are corrupted assholes. But until Trump came along it was accepted as how it works.
This is indeed a new day.
After two bullshit presidential impeachments, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on complaining about the impropriety of impeachments.
What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
I threw up a little in my mouth when I first read that. It is, of course, a bald-faced lie. Judges appointed by left-wing extremists decide cases based on their extremist ideology. End of discussion.
But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly.
And let us be crushingly clear. Maybe we should impeach terrible judges who decide cases terribly. Impeachment beats mob action. (What, Althouse, you think only antisemites and your beloved lefty mobs know how break things?)
Trump threatens to impeach the chicken to scare the monkey back into line.
The real issue is his conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety because of his wife's and daughter's employment.
And every lawyer knows that 75% of Federal Judges are corrupted assholes
...that seems low just based on the pool of applicants...
Welcome to a "two wrongs make it right" era. Act III of this drama ends with either widespread pain and death or a period of bullying, conformity, and ideological zeal.
Flip a coin.
"But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly."
Glenn Reynolds: "So you can say that we shouldn’t do this sort of thing, but it’s a bit disingenuous to say that we don’t do this this sort of thing."
There does seem to be precedent for it. Maybe not impeaching, but trying to impeach.
I don't see why it would be inappropriate to impeach over a terrible decision. It doesn't have to be through malice, but just the recognition that a judge has terrible judgment. Why is it beyond the pale to remove him for that reason?
"But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges "
we don't impeach anybody, unless a majority of Representatives vote for it.
And NOTHING happens, unless 2/3rds of Senators vote to convict.
THAT is WHY we don't impeach Judges.. There is NO POINT.
Wake me, WHEN you get 67 Senators. Until then, zzzz
For most of my legal career I worked as a criminal prosecutor and had contact with Judges almost every day. One thing I learned early on is not to piss off a Judge. I did it twice, and lived to regret it. In both cases I am 100% sure that I was right and the Judge was 100% wrong. But I made the mistake of telling the Judge what I thought, in no uncertain terms, in the presence of the Judge and the opposing attorney. The last time I did this the Judge told me if I did it again he would find me in contempt of court and order the sheriff to take me to jail. It never happened again. If I had a disagreement with a Judge's decision, I did it in private in his chambers. Trump is going public with every beef he has with every Judge who rules against him, and using words that are derogatory and inflammatory in the best light. 100 times worse than what I said. Judges are people too. They have long memories. Trump should have a solid 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, but with his current rhetoric he is wearing out his welcome. If he keeps this up I foresee him not only losing Roberts, but also Barret and Kavanaugh. And maybe even Alito. Remember how Justice Alito mouthed the words "not true" at Obama about Citizens United in Obama's 2010 State of the Union Speech? If Trump defies US Supreme Court decisions, which I sincerely hope never happens, then we may indeed have a Constitutional crisis. And I think there are enough Republicans in the Senate who would join Democrats in an impeachment to remove him from office if this happens. Let's hope it never happens.
"But let me be crushingly clear: We don't impeach judges "
So, since we DON'T impeach judges for terrible decisions, \
I guess that's justification for the Exec branch to start ignoring their decisions?
And, IF people have a problem with THAT..
They can find 67 Senators that agree?
We don't impeach judges for deciding cases terribly.
That’s right. We nominate them to the Supreme Court. 😉
Oh no
Stop it.
Thanks OM.
What I said above…
Hopefully, this signals Roberts must think he has to criticize Trump’s rhetoric in order to have the legitimacy to curtail the on-going abuse by district court judges.
I'm just a simple ol' country boy, but it seems to me that judges have a great gig. I know of no other line of work where you can be really bad at your job and yet not be held accountable in any way.
In a sane world, a lower level judge (District Judge?) would be held accountable if he makes a bad decision, especially when there is clear evidence of conflict of interest or personal bias, law be damned.
It is batsh_t crazy that these judges have such unbridled power. Roberts is a left-leaning milquetoast who doesn't have the courage to discipline lower level judges who are tarnishing the judicial branch on a daily basis. He's wrapped in so much hubris that he can't see that the American people are getting sicker by the day of such obvious judicial overreach and lack of accountability and fairness.
I'm not sure where it will end up, but my guess is that the "co-equal" judicial branch of government is gonna get hammered into line, one way or the other. They can bloviate all they want, but when push comes to shove, the American people (collectively) are not sheep who can be treated like crap forever.
Payback—and there will be payback—is a b_tch.
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
For those who are wondering: I called SCOTUS to ask, was hung up on twice, and when I finally was able to ask a person, “Where can I find the press release of his statement—it’s kinda weird it’s not available,” I was rudely told to send an email, which is yet to be answered.
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
Question for professional court watchers—is there any reason why the Supreme Court would refuse to disclose or publish a press release from the Chief Justice on its web page, choosing instead to send it to select media outlets?
This seems to be a significant departure from standard practice. But then again, so is a Chief Justice ethically compromising himself and the court by offering a political diatribe on a topic over which he has no authority and related to a party in cases he is currently overseeing.
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1902101396817899635
If I recall correctly, the last Federal judge to be impeached was Alcee Hastings for blatant corruption. Even Democrats voted for impeachment against one of their own. Then, he ran for Congress and won.
The likelihood of impeaching a federal judge for being stupid and ridiculously partisan is nil. Everyone here and in DC knows that.
Please - Leftist Judges who think they are Kings - take in some Tren De Aragua. 2-3 each, per household - please.
Ludecke v Watkins SCOTUS 1948
"As Congress explicitly recognized in the recent Administrative Procedure Act, some statutes 'preclude judicial review.' Act of June 11, 1946, § 10, 60 Stat. 237, 243, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009. Barring questions of interpretation and constitutionality, the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 is such a statute. Its terms, purpose, and construction leave no doubt. The language employed by the Fifth Congress could hardly be made clearer, or be rendered doubtful, by the incomplete and not always dependable accounts we have of debates in the early years of Congress. [6] That such was the scope of the Act is established by controlling contemporaneous construction. 'The act concerning alien enemies, which confers on the president very great discretionary powers respecting their persons,' Marshall, C.J., in Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch 110, 126, 3 L.Ed. 504, 'appears to me to be as unlimited as the legislature could make it.' Washington, J., in Lockington v. Smith, 15 Fed.Cas. 758, 761, at page 760, No. 8,448. The very nature of the President's power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion. [7] This view was expressed by Mr. Justice Iredell shortly after the Act was passed, Case of Fries, 9 Fed.Cas. page 826, No. 5,126, and every judge before whom the question has since come has held that the statute barred judicial review. [8] We would so read the Act if it came before us without the impressive gloss of history."
The way to go is not impeaching judges but to declare them vexatious litigants who can't decide anything without concurrence of the Supreme Court.
The guy who made the monster now yells at him What a joke these people are.
Here's a thought exercise: Imagine that the Supreme Court was controlled by a majority of Democrat/Liberal justices, unarguably opposed to the President's agenda.
And the Chief Justice, in the face of similar circumstances (i.e., an "activist" judge making decisions beyond his authority which hamstring the executive), makes a similar "statement." (i.e., too bad sucka, we are the Judiciary and your remedy is "appeal.")
Is that any way to run a country?
Try reversing the parties. What if Roberts said that to Biden about a Trump judge in Texas declaring a unilateral halt to Biden initiatives?
There has to be a way to limit the power of "rogue" judges, beyond reversal on appeal.
Otherwise the remedy of the Executive is to ignore the Judiciary (like Biden), and not recognize the authority of the Judicial Branch (which has always been a disputed Constitutional question).
Is that what Roberts wants?
Also--I agree with Tim Maguire--Roberts needs to make a "statement" about District judges purporting to issue nationwide injunctions, or not make any "statements" at all.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/18/president-trump-goes-scorched-earth-on-judge-boasberg-chief-justice-john-roberts-defends-boasberg/comment-page-5/#comment-11656134
"a Chief Justice ethically compromising himself and the court by offering a political diatribe on a topic over which he has no authority"
a fun (but serious) thought question:
WHAT IS IT? that they have on Roberts?
WHAT is their sway? I'm assuming they've got pix..
But pix of WHAT?
the rest of the story, about some of the deceptions
Roberts along with the notorious seven, allowed the fraud to continue, re texas vs us, refusing to review the irregularities,
not to mention, how many times they could have stopped the malicious prosecutions and sentencing of navarro, bannon and eastman to cite a few examples, for thought crime effectively,
https://odysee.com/@Crowdsourcethetruth:d/SundaywithCharlesJudgeAttacks:2 a deeper dive,
Lonejustice--I have had similar experiences with asshole judges in my career. Judges have the power to make life miserable for lawyers and their clients.
That may be "the way it is", but that doesn't by any means make it right. The last thing that we should do is pay deference to assholes because they are wearing robes.
The idea that judges are wise beings handing down infallible wisdom from on high is the crux of the problem. The Judiciary needs to earn respect. It's a two way street.
What about Obama in 2010 and Biden in 2024 chastising the justices to their faces during a State of Union address. Did Roberts have anything to say about this?
These courts are demanding immediate compliance and it is clearly impossible. The Trump Administration needs some wiggle room while seeking review from higher courts. So "do this now" needs to be "do this sometime in the next 30 days."
“Did Roberts have anything to say about this?”
IIRC, not a goddam thing.
@Quayle 53 Wall Street - Shearman & Sterling
“The guy who made the monster now yells at him What a joke these people are.”
Honor your father, Dinky, as your days that the Lord has given you are numbered.
The Senate can impeach a federal judge. And it did with Judge Alcee Hastings in Florida--who was charged with soliciting a $150,000 bribe in 1981. He was finally impeached by the Senate for bribery and perjury. Well shucks the voters of Florida--sensing that Alcee had met the standard for honesty expected of a member of the House of Representatives sent him to Congress in 1993--where he stayed until he died in 2021. Jasmine Crockett couldn't call him a "mediocre white boy" since Alcee was black.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Roberts, even if his position is absolutely correct. Did he think judicial carte blanche would make Trump feel less emboldened?
Buy the ticket take the ride.
Judges have to be assholes because they supervise lawyers, who are assholes. Anytime you preside over a bunch of alpha dogs, you have to be the one with the deepest bite, or the whole place will fall apart. Kind of like Glengarry Glen Ross, or all the stockbroker firms.
Having said that, there’s a difference between a procedural/stylistic asshole and a substantive asshole. A judge should be able to keep the two kinds of assholery separate. Thumping down a presumptuous alpha pup should not be done by screwing over the pup’s client.
And anyway, in this case, Trump’s tweets occur outside the four walls of the courthouse, relating to a case that’s never going to have a jury. The judge shouldn’t even be aware of them, and if they come to his attention, he should be able to disregard them and decide the case on its merits. Trump’s DOJ lawyers seem to be as respectful as they can be given their client’s instructions. Should be no need to bite them.
JSM
Ludecke v Watkins SCOTUS 1948.
Doesn’t the Yalie radical Boasberg know this case?
as pointed out about hes the former,
With the thin margins in the senate laws of significance can almost never be passed, so there is little hope that congress will do anything regarding judicial reform. If that keeps up, the filibuster will be abandoned and every time power swings, a new set of laws will be passed for everything, requiring courts to declare some of them unconstitutional.
So I have little hope for America’s future. If I could pass a law it would be to require judges to sweep and mop their court rooms each day and mow the grass on weekends. It may inspire humility even though they probably would not do a very good job.
It’s no one’s fault but blogger has the worlds most disgusting text editor.
At Powerline, commenter Victor writes:
"I understand your point of view with respect to deference to judges as perhaps you have likely practiced before the courts during your distinguished career. To those of us who have not spent our careers in the law, these judges and their rulings are increasingly annoying and alarming. As a practical matter the courts are about to do grave damage to themselves if this nonsense continues. I understand the importance of due process. But these judges and their rulings are overstepping legitimate Article II power. As a citizen, I have about had enough."
I suspect he's not alone in his conclusion.
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
"LOL. The entire judiciary has apparently decided to light itself on fire while John Roberts stands by mumbling to himself about how he’s protecting the sacred legal guild from Trump tweets."
Remember when you first heard, “We are a nation of laws, not of men”? La Señora and I do. It was goose bump stuff. Democrats and weak Republicans have turned it to shit and Roberts lives in it.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges...."
Oh, yes we do!
If a judge has undergone an unsuccessful impeachment process - charged with being unfair and partisan - I would think that it will make it easier to get the judge tossed by future defendants should they fear the partisanship. So there may be a point to going through the process.
"Mason G said...
At Powerline, commenter Victor writes:" something I totally agree with.
Their stepping into military matters is way out of bounds. Talking about the trans issue here. The military is subject to the UCMJ, which, if applied to civilians, would be blatantly unconstitutional, in particular, Article 134. 134 in basic says- if you manage to do something we don't like and didn't include anywhere else- we'll charge you with this...
The military, unfortunately, has once in a while conspired - for lack of a better term - conspired with the legal system to change things that would cause an uproar if the brave courageous leaders did it themselves, particularly with the service academies. Once upon a time midshipmen had to step off a high dive, a really high high dive, into a postage stamp size pool below. And throughout the time the academies were all male, there was never a problem with not commissioning a male who didn't step off. One of the biggest causes of female attrition was- they wouldn't step off the end. Even after counseling and pointing out all the other people they watched do it who miraculously lived to tell about it. Like me. (I wasn't commissioned for other reasons, did 21 years enlisted.) So a lawsuit was initiated, and the defense did everything they could to lose. Defended it as "Well, they might need to jump off the deck of a ship some day..." type thing, pointing to practical matters. Which was complete BS.
Related- I went through firefighting school several times. Part of the school- you have to enter as the lead person into an actual fire filled compartment to put out a fire. Twice I saw someone freeze and absolutely refuse to enter. Both times it was a female junior officer. And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if they were academy grads- they didn't step off the board.
Stepping off the board is a psychological exercise in conquering fear. Stepping off from a height to plummet below, purposely, is insane. But it can be done, safely, if you follow the instructions and do what you just watched others do. One thing almost all military members have to do do at some point in their career, however long or short it is, is conquer fear. The big one is, run towards trouble, not away from it. Because the place to stop the trouble (usually) is where it's happening.
I often wonder if LT Hultgreen stepped off the board.
In order to decrease female attrition- the powers that be HAD to get rid of that requirement. Having the courts- which had no authority to do so- order them to drop the requirement kept them from facing the wrath of academy graduates. Who contribute great amounts of money to keep the academies running. A lot of infrastructure at all five of the academies was built with alumni donations.
Conquering fear is a necessary attribute for combat leaders, and the academies have one justification for their existence- to train combat leaders.
Right now the judges issuing rulings telling POTUS "You can't do that!" are playing politics, not interpreting the Constitution. And they are damaging their own reputations and authority.
I am still disappointed that the Republicans did not impeach Biden. The new rules have been established, why should we play by a different set than our political opponents use. Impeach away I say.
I often wonder if LT Hultgreen [sic] stepped off the board.
You and everyone else can lay off Kara Hultgren. She botched her landing approach and the POS Pratt & Whitney engines in her F-14 made her pay for that with her life. She’d not the only aviator those engines killed.
Alas, many federal judges seem to have forgotten or choose to ignore all the restrictions on their jurisdiction imposed by the Constitution, statutes, court rules and prior court decisions. Many of them act like they can do whatever they feel like doing and are willing to gamble that they can get away with it at least some of the time. This is not going to end well.
Alas, many federal judges seem to have forgotten or choose to ignore all the restrictions on their jurisdiction imposed by the Constitution, statutes, court rules and prior court decisions. Many of them act like they can do whatever they feel like doing and are willing to gamble that they can get away with it at least some of the time. This is not going to end well.
@peachy: much as I want to see district court judges get their pee-pees whacked for exceeding their jurisdiction and authority, I would ask Newt to offer an actual Constitutional and statutory basis for Roberts to "intervene and overrule these absurd power grabs."
NOTHING in our Constitution points to the Supreme Court having such power, other than through its appellate role.
IOW The Court can't just swoop down and overrule cases that have not yet been before it.
OTOH I agree entirely that Roberts, by not speaking up when Thomas and Alito were attacked by vicious Dem partisans, has outed himself as a hack.
If constitutionalists ever get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, I would urge then to pass term limits for all "inferior" federal judges, and to clearly define the limits to their jurisdiction.
DINKY DAU 45 said...
The guy who made the monster now yells at him What a joke these people are.
3/18/25, 5:14 PM
YOU and YOURS made the monster. By being assholes that hate America, YOU brought out the America lovers, and now you are pissed off. If your side didn't hate America so much, and try to fundamentally transform it by burning everything down, you might have a point, but your side are nothing but hateful, violent terrorists who need to be put in their place before the corruption rots the rest of the country.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.