Trump Continues to Call for Impeachment of DC Judge After Rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts
Trump appears to be laying groundwork for confrontation with judiciary
In case you missed Donald Trump’s Truth Social post calling for the impeacment of DC Circuit Chief Judge James Boasberg, here it is:
This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President - He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
The statement above speaks for itself, and has produced an action/reaction cycle that bears close watching.
Chief Justice Roberts Issues Rare Rebuke
After Trump issued that Statement, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement:
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Trump Doubles Down
Trump then doubled down:“Many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge. I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left," Trump said in an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. "He was Obama-appointed, and he actually said we shouldn't be able to take criminals, killers, murderers, horrible, the worst people, gang members, gang leaders, that we shouldn't be allowed to take them out of our country…..Well, that's a presidential job that's not for a local judge to be making that determination,”
Reactions to the Dispute
Conservative former Judge J. Michael Lutig offered a sharp response:
The president of the United States has essentially declared war on the rule of law in America…In the past few weeks … the president himself has led a full-frontal assault on the constitution, the rule of law, the federal judiciary, the American justice system and the nation’s legal profession…..When the president of the United States wages a war on the rule of law and the federal judiciary alley, America is in a constitutional crisis. The constitutional role of the president is to faithfully execute the laws. Needless to say, the president is doing anything but that at the moment. Most constitutional scholars have long agreed that a constitutional crisis exists at least when the president defies a court order. That’s essentially what the president is doing today and what it appears he intends to do in the future.
Alext Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, offered the following analysis of what the courts could do:
Courts have the ability to sanction government employees who ignore their orders, both criminally and in civil procedures. I have little doubt that the federal judiciary will stick up for itself and will wield all of its power necessary to defend its rightful, lawful, and legal constitutional authority to put checks, to oversee the actions of the president of the United States and make sure they comport with the law.
MS Comment: This moment has all the hallmarks of a constitutional flashpoint, one that could have an impact on the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches for years to come. Trump’s call for impeachment isn’t about a genuine constitutional dispute—it’s about intimidation. He is sending a clear message: judges who rule against him will face public attacks and political retribution.
Chief Justice Roberts' response is significant because he rarely engages in political disputes, yet here he felt compelled to remind the nation that impeachment is not a tool for erasing judicial decisions a president dislikes. But Trump’s reaction—immediately doubling down—shows that this is not just bluster; it’s a test of how far he can push the boundaries of presidential power.
If the courts don’t push back decisively, the implications are disturbing. Does this mean any judge who enforces limits on executive power will be targeted for removal? Will federal agencies feel emboldened to ignore court rulings if they believe Trump has their back? This is no longer just about deportations—it’s about whether the courts can still function as a check on the presidency.
“Chief Justice Roberts' response is significant because he rarely engages in political disputes, yet here he felt compelled to remind the nation that impeachment is not a tool for erasing judicial decisions a president dislikes. But Trump’s reaction—immediately doubling down—shows that this is not just bluster; it’s a test of how far he can push the boundaries of presidential power.”
When Robert’s weighs in, you know Trump must be wrong (he’s always wrong as far as I’m concerned). And this is the same guy who saved Trump’s arse on several occasions; he slow rolled two significant cases, including the documents and J6th cases, which were slam dunks, until it would have gotten to SCOTUS; in which case, all bets are off!
Not to mention, conjuring up a non-existent immunity clause in the Constitution; finally a Republican SCOTUS with an original thought; although it was not only harebrained, but inconsistent with the Constitution and our founders! Yet, here we are!
And ironically, although Trump did double down on his criticism’s and intimidation of judge Boasberg, Trump actually refused to be critical of Roberts. I wonder why?
Perhaps he knows he owes his freedom to the man, and of course, The Federalist Society; where at least five of the SCOTUS Justices get their marching orders. Apparently, Thomas is the odd man out; he’s a wholly owned subsidiary of Harlan Crow Inc: Winnebago, Anyone?
Bottom line: This case is about one thing, and one thing only: Due Process,” which can be found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; ensuring fairness, and protecting individuals from government actions, that deprive them of life, liberty, or property without following established legal procedures.
And if these people truly are violent gang members, then kick them out, after they receive a fair hearing. However, given Trump and ICE’s track record of sending non-violent, non criminal asylum seekers to Guantanamo, then what is the likelihood that most of the people sent to El Salvador, were actually guilty as charged? Operative word: Charged, they haven’t been, which is the point!
And lastly, I get this issue is also about three co-equal branches of government, and its checks and balances. But who’s fooling who?
There haven’t been three separate and equal branches of government in this country, since Trump took over the Republican Party and rebranded it MAGA Inc., or the MAGA cult, and The Federalist Society was able to stock the judiciary with only fully vetted and partisan judges, who will do its bidding, and the bidding of its sister religious organizations, and the corporations and billionaires who support these organizations.
And if history is a harbinger of things to come, then try to remember how it worked out for the Manson Family, or the cultists; I mean citizens of Jonestown! Just saying….:)
IMHO!…:)
Any time Trump starts a statement with “Many people” it’s the most obvious tell since Pinnochio’s nose. What follows is a lie and a complete figment of his imagination.