One of the greatest abuses of the Democratic party in the past eight years has been their use of impeachment investigations and charges against their political opponents. From President Donald Trump to conservative justices, liberal members have demanded impeachments over everything from opposing the NFL kneelers to hanging revolutionary-era flags. Now, some Republican members are calling for the impeachment of judges who ruled against Trump’s earlier executive orders and programs. Elon Musk has supported this effort. It would be a grave mistake to follow the Democratic example in the misuse of impeachment powers to target judges or justices.
I testified in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden on the use and the abuse of this power. I also was lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment trial in the Senate. In my view, this is not an appropriate use of impeachment and could seriously undermine our constitutional system.
I have disagreed with some of the decisions enjoining Trump’s efforts to reduce the size and waste of the federal government. That is not because I support the extreme reliance on executive orders. Such orders can be a threat to our tripartite system of governance. I often do criticize the use of executive power to circumvent Congress by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Many presidents have sought to concentrate power in the executive branch, a dangerous usurpation of authority in a system premised on the division of governing powers. That imperial model of the presidency should be resisted by both courts and Congress.
Many of these orders, however, focus on the running of the executive branch where Article III powers are most robust. Presidents must carry out constitutional legislative mandates. However, they retain considerable latitude in how they carry out such mandates.
Regardless of how one feels about the pace or wisdom of these moves, Trump has authority under Article II of the Constitution to make significant changes to the structure and size of the executive branch.
Despite this view, the devil is in the details. The sweeping scope and pace of the moves raise good-faith concerns over compliance with federal laws and dedicated federal spending. It is common for presidents, including Joe Biden, to issue a flurry of executive orders negating their predecessors’ policies. Ultimately, the underlying legal issues must be hashed out in the courts. Presidents often prevail in most, but not all, such uses of executive power.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R., Ga.) and others are upset with U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer’s temporary blocking of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing U.S. Treasury Department systems responsible for trillions of dollars in payments.
Rep. Andy Ogles (R., Tenn.) has filed a resolution seeking to have U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington, D.C., removed after he ordered the Trump administration to restore government health websites that were taken offline.
Other judges have been named as potential targets for ruling against the Trump Administration. Musk supported the effort and posted a message stating, “Time to impeach judges who violate the law.”
The problem is that they are not “violating the law” but simply holding an opposing viewpoint on the law’s meaning. This is why we have appellate courts. In the past, Democrats have called for impeaching judges who ruled against their own agenda. Is the GOP now going to simply replicate the lawfare and impeachment mania that consumed the Democratic party?
Rep. Clyde objected that these judges are
“not just hurting the president. You’re hurting the American people because they’re the ones who elected him, and they’re the ones who want him to do this – to exercise these specific authorities. And these judges are really denying the American people their rights.”
Indeed, judges often frustrate politicians in fulfilling campaign promises. They are designed to be counter-majoritarian and to resist popular demands when those demands contravene constitutional values. Sometimes they are themselves wrong in using such Article III powers. However, it is vital to our system to support an independent judiciary in working through such different legal viewpoints.
Another judge who has been targeted is District Judge John McConnell. According to WPRI, he is under fire for his public statement that courts must “stand and enforce the rule of law, that is, against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant or could be whatnot. “
Once again, I have criticized both conservative and liberal judges (and justices) for such public commentary. I view it as a great disservice to the courts for judges to pander to political groups or popular sentiment. Such commentary is worthy of judicial complaints under the Judicial Code of Ethics. However, comments like Judge McConnell’s would not satisfy the high standard demanded for impeachment.
The most difficult challenge for any political movement is the use of restraint to prevent reforms from becoming revenge. I understand the frustration with some of these initial decisions. However, they are merely the start of a process for review and resolution in our court system. We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in history in large part due to our independent judiciary. We should not allow the frustration with court rulings to become the defenestration of our Constitution values.
In a Madisonian system, it is often as important how we do things as what we do. These are times that demand the greatest measure of commitment to our constitutional system; a leap of faith in a system that has served us brilliantly for centuries. Our system does not guarantee that we have good judging or even good judges. It guarantees that any bad decisions can be corrected in the course of our legal process. It is a time to allow that process to take its course through the courts, not Congress.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
OT; Wow, Trump is upset and incredulous that whoever made the last deal with Mexico and Canada made a really bad deal. The idiot even wondered who the hell signed that deal. He did. Apparently he’s not aware that he is the one who declared that deal to be the best ever. Now he’s imposing tariffs because that deal is…unfair. The moron made that deal.
His cognitive impairment is real.
I may be in error, but I believe Trump imposes the tariffs to punsh both countries for failure to police their borders and their failure to block drug trafficing.
Trump imposed tarriffs on Canada and Mexico because he believes the current trade deal is unfair. He signed the deal while proclaiming it was the best deal ever, better than NAFTA. He forgot he is the one who made the deal and he’s wondering who is the idiot who signed the deal. He did. No wonder President Macron had an easy time making Trump look like a clueless idiot in front of the world.
George: Perhaps you are mixing apples with oranges here? (Macron was not addressing Mexico/Canada/NAFTA)
The EU has structured $Billions in loans to Ukraine, financed through frozen Russian assets. See this for a better understanding. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-solidarity-ukraine/eu-assistance-ukraine/eu-financial-support-ukraine_en
When Trump said that Europe was offering $$$ in loans to Ukraine, Macron paused Trump and said that much of it had already been paid to Ukraine (@ 60%). The two ships (SS Macron and SS Trump) simply passed each other in reference to the same ocean. No more, no less. It was MEDIA who made a big deal of it.
(You and Gigi do seem to share a cognitive ability to make apple-orange wine out of blueberries.)
thanks.
More like razzberries, Lin.
Wow, Deal is here representing for The Sharpest Guy In The Room, the now former Oval Office House Plant.
The guy whose First Felon Son held the nuclear football (for rent?), while he spent the rest of his time supposedly working his young staff to death and assuring Americans he would never pardon The First Felon Son.
This is the genius on display from the full auto, belt fed Marxist Useful Idiots.
The ones like Deal who deny any cognitive impairment at the same time they assure us that since they became trannies, they’re eagerly awaiting the arrival of their first menstrual period.
Without a 2/3 Senate majority, this is a nothingburger. Of course there were going to be court challenges. They will work their way through the system the wins will just keep coming. Hell, if Democrats are so inclined to dig their own grave, then by all means, keep handing them shovels. Congress should be focusing on passing legislation that codifies the EO’s. By the midterms, voters will have a very clear picture of who the Democratic party really is.
In these disputes between the Executive and the Judiciary, the default should not always be that the judge is correct until the appeal is decided. This is especially true when (1) the appellant judge shopped, (2) proper notice to the DOJ was not given, (3) the judge did not even have time to read the appellant’s complaint and brief, (4) required bonds were not filed, (5) compliance prohibits “political appointees” from doing their lawful jobs. Paul Engelmayer’s TRO failed on all of those counts, and should be simply disregarded.
Professor Turley rarely misses an opportunity to announce that he views the three hour long riot on J6 to be perhaps the greatest desecration of our Constitution in our nation’s history.
Today, Professor Turley once again defends the long ongoing abuse and corruption our Constitutional processes and our civil rights by his fellow Democrat lawyers now serving as federal judges, claiming this is nothing worse than differences of opinion:
The problem is that they are not “violating the law” but simply holding an opposing viewpoint on the law’s meaning.
The ol’ Democrat “Nothing To See Here; Please Believe Us, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™. That’s a very worn out excuse, Professor Turley. Certainly didn’t work for your party in the last election.
The greatest desecration of our Constitution is the ongoing efforts of your fellow Democrat lawyers in political office and on the bench (but I repeat myself), repeatedly making the deliberate choice to use their offices as another weapon in the Democrat party arsenal. Whether to deprive citizens of their civil rights by power of law, or to command the president he is not allowed to run the executive branch.
Professor Turley: claiming that there are appellate courts, so it’s all good, no harm/no foul is pretty weak sauce. The fact that appellate courts exist doesn’t reverse the damage done. That is an undeniable fact you cannot claim to be unaware of.
Some judges clearly SHOULD be impeached.
Emmett Sullivan for example, who knowingly allowed the prosecutors of General Flynn to conspire with Flynn’s defense lawyers and to commit perjury and utter false testimony in that trial. Following that, attempting to prosecute Flynn himself after the DoJ gave reasons for and attempted to drop the prosecution. Now there’s a judge demanding a trial with a guilty verdict! Judge Sullivan is an example where one could argue his actions falls under “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Then there are your fellow members of the Washington DC Bar Association who as FISA judges heard the perjured testimony of Obama’s Attorney Generals and FBI Directors. After which, they DID NOT summon them back into their courts to answer for either their contempt of court or perjury. Now those same brothers of yours from your bar association who concealed and then ignored the serial felonies of your fellow Washington DC bar association lawyers, have attempted to prohibit the pardoned J6 defendants from returning to Washington DC without their express permission.
These FISA judges, your fellow bar association members, concealing and ignoring serial felonies committed in their courtrooms by Obama’s AGs and FBI Directors, also your fellow members of the Washington DC bar, removed Americans’ civil rights through color of law. Are those “high crimes and misdemeanors”? An abject and obviously corrupt Democrat bar association brotherhood, both prosecutors and judges?
These are not occasional events of “differences of opinions” – this has become a trend of Democrat lawyers on the bench and in the bureaucracy, desecrating and corrupting our Constitution with their abuses and attacks on both the executive branch as well as on Americans civil rights.
And you defend it with faint criticism and excuses.
Nearly 20 years ago, another constitutional scholar who served under an Attorney General published one of his many books on the Constitutional abuses of SCOTUS justices. I would suggest that Professor Turley and others here put it on their reading lists.
Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095
Plus, I just did an Irish Poem for Judge Dale Ho! By the way, there is more than one Judge Ho. But the bad one is the Biden appointee.
That Ho, Over There???
Or, THOT Crimes???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a fellow named Ho!
A Biden judge, wouldn’t you know?
Instead of dismissing –
A match made for pissing!
As Ho shows how low he can go!
Note 1 – THOT is internet slang for “That ho over there.”
I am sooo sorry! I put my Judge Ho comment on the wrong thread, and it should have been on this one! Is today Monday??? It sure seems like it. It is what I get for trying to work and post at the same time. Sooo, we have been in the Ho situation before, with Gen. Flynn, and Judge Sullivan, and Sullivan’s Toady, Amicus Gleeson. Me and Penelope Dreadful did something when a DC Panel vacated the Amicus, although Rogue Judge Sullivan kept going. Didn’t Trump eventually pardon Flynn???
John Gleeson, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York
A Real Law Firm Practicing Real Law With Real Lawyers! Really!
No. 20-5143
IN Re: Michael T. Flynn,
Petitioner
Emergency Ex Parte Motion For Clarification of the Word, “Moot”
COMES NOW, The Amicus, John Gleeson, Esq., and for his Motion for Clarification, presents the following:
1. This Honorable Appeals Court used the word “Moot” in its recent Order stating, in brief, that “The District Court’s Order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot.”
2. However, Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides TWO contradictory definitions of the word, “moot” one meaning an issue open for discussion, (hereinafter “good moot”) and the other definition meaning of no practical significance, (hereinafter “bad moot”.)
3. As a result, this Court’s recent Order is confusing, and I am not sure whether I still have a job, a paycheck, and any practical significance.
WHEREFORE, the Above Premises, stated, the Amicus respectfully Requests this Court to determine what the meaning of “moot” is for the case at bar.
Respectfully,
John Gleeson,
Amicus and a Real Lawyer
https://pansiesforplato.wordpress.com/2020/06/24/latest-gleeson-motion/
Jonathan
EVERY so called “independent agency” of the federal government is unconstitutional.
The Office of Special Counsel is one such agency.
You are WAY overdue to address this.
ARTICLE 2 gives the President sole Executive power.
What in the constitution gave Congress the right to exclude an agency in the EXECUTIVE branch from control of the President?
Creation of these agencies REQUIRED a constitutional amendment.
Congress controls funding and makes laws, including those that mandate the creation of independent agencies. Therefore, Trump cannot eliminate a department created and funded by Congress.
As President, Trump can dictate rules within the executive branch, provided those rules do not violate existing laws created and funded by Congress. Congress specifically dictates how funds are to be disbursed. Not Trump.
The Supreme Court has complete authority over the rules and conduct within the judicial branch.
Congress has complete control over legislative rules and can mandate conduct within the legislative branch; however, it cannot enforce laws. Enforcement falls under the jurisdiction of the executive branch.
Republicans and Trump are going beyond their authority, especially Elon, who is/isn’t running DOGE under undetermined authority.
Office of Special Counsel protects those who expose government waste, fraud, abuse, and violations of the law. Why are you against protecting them?
“Office of Special Counsel protects those who expose government waste, fraud, abuse, and violations of the law.”
Sammy, why are you lying that the IRS whistleblowers who came forward after Biden had his henchmen tell them they weren’t going to be allowed to prosecute his son were supposedly protected? Their careers were destroyed!
Sammy, why are you lying that the FBI whistleblowers who came forward to tell how the FBI was hiding Biden criminality while at the same time removing Americans civil rights by color of law were supposedly protected. Their careers were destroyed!
Sammy, the Democrat Memory Hole isn’t going to work for you.
Like presidents, impeachment of judges should be reserved for the worst circumstances. In the theoretical world, what does it take for a judge’s actions to be covered by “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Does it have to be accepting bribes from one side in a trial? Misappropriating money?
Then there’s the world of real politik, which sometimes resembles school and schoolyard bullies. When one small subset of judges blatantly, obviously, issues unconstitutional nationwide rulings telling the president that he and his cabinet cannot take executive actions as the elected head of the Executive Branch, what then? Assume they’re knowledgeable enough about the constitution to decide constitutional issues to serve as judges – but somehow or other keep making the same mistakes always favoring Democrats when ruling on constitutional issues? Similar to Biden being too diminished in mental capacity to stand trial – but mentally alert to still be the Commander In Chief with the nuclear football at his quivering fingertips, held by his son?
Bullies usually stop when somebody they’re targeting finally kicks them in the kneecap and then kicks the crap out of them when they’re down on the ground. It becomes a completely different situation when you realize that from that point onward, all the blood on the ground isn’t going to come from the intended victim – it could well be all coming from you. Would these political operators called “judges” act in the same way as legal bullies if it were no longer safe to do so without fear of any comeback?
Real politik can suggest that the Democrats have set the standard for impeachment to be a very, very broad interpretation of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and a deterrent to these lower court judges acting as political hitmen for Democrats is to impeach them using the Democrat impeachment standard, knowing removal at a Senate trial won’t happen – but the impeachment hearings will certainly put the actions, background, and bias of these judges on public display as their name becomes an entry in American history.
Real politik also tells us that impeachment more often builds support for the person being impeached, the most glaring example being Bill Clinton. Can’t ignore that either.
Professor Turley is comfortable in his theoretical world. He certainly can’t offer any pragmatic suggestions on rogue judges whose actions make ordinary Americans think they could be campaign managers for Democrat politicians.
“ Many presidents have sought to concentrate power in the executive branch, a dangerous usurpation of authority in a system premised on the division of governing powers.”
Republicans, particularly those aligned with the Heritage Foundation, actively promote the unitary executive theory, which is the main objective of Project 2025. They aim to normalize this concept. They have threatened to disregard court orders to demonstrate their commitment to this belief. They want to make the presidency the more powerful branch that can steamroll over the others. This goes against the Constitution and the equal idea that no branch can have more power over another. Trump and his cronies believe a deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution sanctions their authoritarian aspirations.
Turley is starting to run into the problem of avoiding criticism of Republicans and Trump’s increasing lawlessness and chaos. Republican governors and legislators are beginning to “gently” push back and criticize the ham-handed way Elon is, who may not be legally authorized to cut spending and dismantle departments without congressional authority.
Vomit
George has written a long, meandering Marxist diatribe where he claims that he and all the rest of Democrats declare that President Joe Biden was correct and constitutional in adopting unitary executive theory and putting it into practice: President Biden repeatedly ignoring SCOTUS ruling that he couldn’t transfer billions of dollars in student loans from the students who took those loans to taxpayers.
While it didn’t work, President Biden declared he had the power to attempt to buy the election by ignoring SCOTUS and continue making declarative orders to transfer those loans to blue collar taxpayers.
George is still doing the best he is capable of to avoid any criticism of Democrats and their unconstitutional lawlessness and chaos.
I disagree. On its face or at its inception, the executive branch already has vast and broad powers. That was the point. The judges should be there for disputes and ensuring rights are not violated. Bill of rights for those unsure of what that entails.
This belief that trump is going beyond his authority by firing his staff(yes, those at other agencies are his staff) is wildly misguided and plain wrong. Any law that is there that stifles the execution of his authority is of course unconstitutional. Even the Pendleton act can and should be unconstitutional. Our failing scotus is becoming the main issue. Are the article 3 powers not strong enough to repel lower courts unconstitutional reaches?
The Constitution does not give the President the right to fire anyone in the EB he wants. The Constitution does require the President to faithfully uphold the laws of Congress.
Does congress say who to hire?
Congress makes the laws as to who is eligible to be hired and what protections they get.
Thats narrow but the actual person can be who ever the executive branch chooses. Within limits. But setting the “term limits” if such offices are unconstitutional
“But setting the “term limits” if such offices are unconstitutional.” Where does it say that?
By its very nature of giving the branch wide berth! And usually when a new president is elected, they often choose to replace them as they are allowed to. By not allowing the president to appoint who he wants to positions/offices is preventing him from doing so therefore making it unconstitutional
Franke says: The Constitution does require the President to faithfully uphold the laws of Congress.
Franke: you had TWELVE YEARS, ending just a few short months ago, to state that Obama and Obama’s Third Term were violating their oath of office through their refusal to faithfully uphold the existing immigration laws as passed by Congress.
20+ MILLION new criminal Illegal Aliens invited to and helped to illegally enter the country – going so far as to provide them with an app to schedule their illegal entry, and thousands directly flown at taxpayer expense into the country. Guest Democrat Voters who commit additional crimes long after the crime of illegally entering the country.
And WHAM!!!! There dies any hopes you have of having some credibility – crushed by your own duplicity, dishonesty, and hypocrisy, Franke.
You can’t even defend the lie that was the lead-in lie of this post.
Both Biden and Obama deported more than enough people that it is absurd to say they were not upholding immigration laws.
“Both Biden and Obama deported more than enough people that it is absurd to say they were not upholding immigration laws.
Your claim is that you didn’t see a any lack of faithfully upholding immigration laws because… they deported enough people to get a pass for providing them with an app schedule their violation of criminal law – including flying them at taxpayer expense from foreign countries straight into the USA?
What are those magic numbers of importations that justify that, Franke?
One a day? One a month? One out of every thousand they gifted an Obamaphone to and handed a ticket to their destination?
We have an additional 20+ MILLION Illegal Aliens in the country since they stopped enforcing immigration laws Franke. Whatever you claim is the magical number of deportations, you’re Lyin’ Like A Biden to claim they were faithfully upholding the laws passed by Congress.
Meanwhile, the number of encounters at the border has dropped from thousands per day under Obama’s Third Term as delivered by The Oval Office House Plant to just a couple of hundred per day since Trump was elected.
So why the difference Franke? The oath of office hasn’t changed.
Where do you go from here? Trump was just far more competent and presidential than Obama and Obama’s Third Term because those two Democrats couldn’t evenmanage a blowjob in The First Felon Son’s penthouse among his crack whores, much less faithfully uphold immigration laws passed by Congress?
“the unitary executive theory [. . .]. They aim to normalize this concept.”
You mean like James Madison did?
Turley– “The problem is that they are not “violating the law” but simply holding an opposing viewpoint on the law’s meaning.”
***
Not strictly true. There is little law in a TRO. Instead there is a factual determination that irreparable harm is likely to occur without the TRO. The Democrats seem to be engineering these TRO requests [at least in one case] with the judge’s connivance so they are issued ex parte, that is without input from the administration. You are more likely to win an argument if your opponent isn’t allowed to appear.
Equally disturbing is that some of the judges seem less to be exercising a judicial function than they are usurping roles that clearly belong to the executive.
In some instances it appears that these carefully shopped judges [or their spouses and family members] may have a financial or career interest in the outcomes of the cases.
As I noted before, it is likely no accident that most of these cases end up with Obama/Biden judges.
Blatant judge shopping for robed activists who may also have obvious conflicts of interest together with judicial usurpation of executive and legislative roles stinks of rot.
Either the Supreme Court acts, or the legislature or–more likely in the failure of other remedies–the President.
That can’t end well for the judiciary. If they break it, they buy it.
Here’s a judge who believes he has presidential powers.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/breaking-biden-judge-dresses-down-doj-lawyers-usaid/
If the executive can’t halt or cancel questionable, abusive or fraudulent contracts without this judge’s approval we no longer have an Article II executive, a/k/a President.
Biden judge, of course.
Jonathan: When it comes to your sliding scale of positions you are full of contradictions. You say you opposed reliance on EOs “because such orders can be a threat of our tripartite system of governance”. But just last week DJT issued another EO declaring that “only the President or the Attorney General can speak for the US when stating an opinion as to what the law is”. In the stroke of his pen DJT eviscerated the role of the courts in issuing orders and opinions as to what the law actually is! Did you write a column opposing DJT’s breathtaking EO which was a direct “threat of our tripartite system of governance.”? Nope. You were strangely silent.
Now you say you oppose MAGA members of the House filing articles of impeachment against judges who have ruled against some of DJT’s EOs. You say that would be a “misuse of the impeachment powers to target judges or justices”. Good so far. But that is not consistent with your position during the Biden administration. You were one of the biggest proponents of misusing impeachment against Biden because you claimed he was guilty of “bribery” because you alleged he received money from his son’s foreign business ventures. You even testified before the House in support of articles of impeachment against Joe Biden. For over a year Jim Comer tried to prove your claims. That investigation ended with a thud because Comer’s principal witness against Biden was a KGB agent who lied to the FBI and is now serving a prison sentence.
When it comes to your positions on various issues even a modicum of consistency is absent!
Dennis Mcinliar is either pretending to be an idiot, or actually is the dumbest person on the planet.
Trumps EO applies to the Executive Branch, dum dum.
Guess you missed that part in your DNC email or The Guardian article.
Liar. “Only the President or the Attorney General can speak for the US when stating an opinion as to what the law is”. Courts do not speak for the US.
And impeaching a president does not threaten judicial independence. The presidency is not supposed to be independent. The two political branches are supposed to check each other constantly, whereas the judicial branch is supposed to be independent of the other two, which is why judges may only removed for bad behavior, not for their rulings on the bench, no matter how bad they may be. Bad rulings should be dealt with by judicial conduct committees within the judicial branch.
Good article Dr Turley. One question, however, what if the Trump administration simply begins to ignore the rulings of judges? They have certainly spoken of doing just that. Be interesting to hear your take on that possibility and the outcome such would produce.
That would be called following the Biden example.
Biden never ignored a court order, or a ruling. The idea that he did is simply a lie.
In particular, it is an outright LIE to claim that SCOTUS ordered the president not to forgive student loans, or found that he had no power to do so. SCOTUS ruled on a specific interpretation of a specific statute. The Secretary of Education had been relying on his department’s reading of the statute to forgive certain loans, and SCOTUS said the department lawyers were reading it wrong. Biden accepted that ruling and immediately stopped relying on that reading of that statute, as was right and proper. The court never said, nor COULD IT EVER say, that no power exists for loans to be forgiven. How could it possibly know that? How could such a proposition ever be brought before it?
The ol’ semantics game, eh Milhouse? Oh, how clever you are!!!!
February 19, 2025: US appeals court blocks last attempted Biden student loan forgiveness
How many kicks at the cat, making slight changes each time he got cut off by the courts, do you want to give Biden, Milhouse?
Would you like to instead try to convince us Biden wasn’t doing it in hopes he could buy the election by transferring enough loans from students to blue collar tax paying Americans to become part of their debt.?
Your excuse is that his Secretary of Education just read the statute and Constitution wrong – time after time? Same lawyer made that same mistake every time as well?
The court never said no power exists for loans to be forgiven? Where did you read the courts saying Biden had the power to transfer those loans from the students who signed for them onto the backs of American taxpayers – he just hadn’t done it quite right yet?
Irrational arguments and lying by insinuation like you offer is why raging political judges feel confident when using their courtrooms to wage lawfare.
You are either a filthy liar or an ignoramus. Probably both.
The recent order (which was NOT a decision on the merits but merely a projection of the likelihood of the merits, when and if that is eventually decided) was about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATUTE than the one the Supreme Court decided on. That is not a “slight change”, it’s a completely different case. There is nothing in common between the two cases.
The court said that not only have the Department of Education’s lawyers probably been reading this statute wrong but so has EVERYONE ELSE for the past THIRTY YEARS.
And no, the court never said no power exists for loans to be forgiven. How could it possibly say that? How does it know what statutes are out there that might have such a power. But in fact you’re not even close, because the court EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED that the very same statute DOES allow the secretary to forgive loans. It allows loans on an Income Based Repayment (IBR) plan to be forgiven, For thirty years everyone has assumed that language also applies to Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) plans. The court said no, it only applies to IBRs, not to ICRs. At least on the face of it. The merits hearing hasn’t yet happened and probably never will, but at least facially the court said it applies to IBRs only. But NOBODY disputes that IBR loans can indeed be forgiven. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yes, OF COURSE Biden was doing it in hopes he could buy the election by transferring enough loans from students to blue collar tax paying Americans to become part of their debt.? So what? That is not illegal, and no court can EVER find it illegal. So long as there is a statute allowing him to do it, he has every right in the world to do it for political advantage.
Jeff says: One question, however, what if the Trump administration simply begins to ignore the rulings of judges?
Jeff! You’re now wanting commentary on presidents ignoring the rulings of judges! I for one would be grateful if you would share your opinions on Biden repeatedly ignoring the rulings of SCOTUS that he did not have the power to transfer billions in student loan debt from the students who took out those loans to the wallets of blue collar taxpayers.
Be interesting to hear if you supported those attempts by Biden to buy the last election with those unconstitutional actions and the following lawlessness as he ignored the SCOTUS ruling.
Take it away Jeff – the stage is yours!
I’m not a Biden fan by any stretch and certainly no fan of “whataboutism” but the only question I would proffer to you would be why wasn’t this challenged in court and the Biden administration found in contempt or ruled against? If they were I missed it.
I’m not a Biden fan by any stretch Your posting history here suggests otherwise Jeff, but I’ll move on.
the only question I would proffer to you would be why wasn’t this challenged in court and the Biden administration found in contempt or ruled against?
I will proffer a follow up question to you that turns your deflection regarding Trump back to you:
A parade of Obama/Biden Attorney Generals and current and former FBI Directors repeatedly appeared in Washington DC’s FISA courts with the illegally composed Clinton/Obama/Biden/DNC “Trump Russia Dossier” in hand. There they swore perjured affidavits and gave perjured testimony, swearing that political document that was intended as a Trump killshot, was all 100% verified intelligence agency product.
They swore under oath that all of it had been processed through the mandatory Woods Procedures as required by the courts. They swore that they were unaware of any exculpatory evidence regarding the “dossier” or the person they were targeting that they should make those FISA judges aware of while requesting counterespionage spy warrants against Trump.
Then they uttered a false document to those FISA courts each time: the Clinton/Obama/Biden/DNC “Trump-Russia Dossier”.
Jeff, why do you think not a single one of those Democrat lawyers from Professor Turley’s Washington DC Bar Association who committed those felonies – right there in the courtroom of Democrat lawyers now serving as FISA judges – was NOT dragged back into those courtrooms to answer for any of the felonies they committed before those judges in those courtrooms?
Perhaps you need some names of the felons who walked free without answering for their felonies committed in Washington DC FISA courtrooms to help you come up with your answer:
Former Obama FBI Director James Comey
Former Obama FBI Director Robert Mueller
Former Obama Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe
Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch
Former Obama Attorney General Sally Yates
So Jeff, rather than deflecting by asking why Biden wasn’t challenged for blatantly ignoring SCOTUS telling him he couldn’t attempt to buy the election through transferring student loan debt to taxpayers (he was), tell us why Obama’s felon Democrat lawyers listed above were allowed to walk free by the judges they perjured themselves to? Or alternately, by the Department of Justice they ran or worked for?
Followup question for you: All of them did that regarding the “Trump/Russia Dossier” without getting Obama’s permission first? They went behind his back and he was completely unaware of this?
Even after Obama and Biden were given at least two personal briefings that the ‘dossier’ was fraudulent – and his party was illegally paying the Russian and British spies composing it?
If you were actually posing a question that I am responding to now, the answers you come up with as to why they were never brought before the courts to answer for their serial felonies could be the answer to your question.
why wasn’t this challenged in court and the Biden administration found in contempt or ruled against?
Because it never happened. From the moment the ruling was handed down, the administration was in full compliance with it. Those who claim otherwise are liars.
Biden repeatedly ignoring the rulings of SCOTUS that he did not have the power to transfer billions in student loan debt from the students who took out those loans to the wallets of blue collar taxpayers.
That is a lie. There was never any such ruling, nor could there ever be such a ruling. There was a ruling about the meaning of one line in one statute, and Biden completely accepted that ruling and abided by it for the rest of his term.
Jeff wants to know what would happen if we find life on Mars, professor. There has been some talk of that.
Jeff is none other that lawn boy, the booger eating troll.
Turley has a JD, which is does not confer the title “Dr.” His proper title is “Professor”.
One question, however, what if the Trump administration simply begins to ignore the rulings of judges?
That depends. Orders that are clearly ultra vires can and should be ignored. Some of the recent orders seem to fit that category, and the president’s lawyers should examine them closely and advise him which ones are definitely ultra vires. When they have identified some, the president should rip those orders up on camera, declare to the public and to the judges who issued them that he refuses to comply, order the entire executive branch to disobey the orders or be fired for insubordination, and write a letter to the Chief Justice informing him that certain judges under his supervision have misbehaved and demanding that they be disciplined.
But orders that are not clearly ultra vires, orders that are within those available for a judge to make, must be obeyed even if the president believes they are invalid. The proper remedy for those is the appellate courts.
The federal judiciary needs an overhaul, but the right way, by legislation.
Slime ball lawyers are held in esteem only by themselves. Why on earth would anyone expect them to suddenly have ethics and scruples because they put on a robe.
What is the difference between an obstinate rooster and a lawyer?
The rooster clucks defiance.
While impeachment may be a step too far, some form of punitive reaction needs to be initiated in order to let jurists know that they can’t flaunt their partisan impulses via the bench.
The reaction is that district court judges risk being reversed on appeal, whether by the circuit court or the Supremes. Judges don’t like to be reversed. Please also be aware that the district court decisions concern TROs – temporary restraining orders. This brief period of injunctive relief holds matters in abeyance until the facts of the case and applicable law are discussed and argued. A TRO isn’t a final decision. Here’s a short, helpful article which will educate you. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_restraining_order
“Judges don’t like to be reversed.”
Naw, but activists dont mind.
Proposal: ‘Three Reversals and You’re Out’ and forfeit any taxpayer-funded pension.
For starters, Woke “forum shoppers” somehow managed to get Joe Biden’s-nominated Judge Ana Reyes– the first openly LGBTQ district court judge in Washington, D.C. –to rule in their lawsuit against Trump’s EO regarding trans individuals serving in the military, as well as their demands for certain pronouns to be used. Reye’s’ hostility toward Trump’s EO was stunning.
No, not impeachment. But IMHO, she clearly should have recused herself.https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845.1.0.pdf
Forum shopping is the go-to move for Republicans whenever they want to take on Democrats in court.
Elon Musk isn’t really into having anyone hold him back, and it shows.
Republicans seem to be giving in to the demands of Elon and Trump, which is leading judges to step in. It’s pretty clear that they’re not stepping up and doing their jobs properly.
The Supreme Court isn’t going to back Trump either; they’re already seen as leaning in his favor.
“The Supreme Court isn’t going to back Trump either; they’re already seen as leaning in his favor.”
Idiot George with an attempt to raise his prediction record to 1 and 23.
Never mind his last statement makes no sense.
“The moon is likely made of rock; its already seen as being cheese.”
After a couple of weeks the cheese would be rock hard but that never happens for this exact reason.
Republicans barely have a majority in US Senate, and they well know they lack a two-thirds majority to impeach.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 3
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm#a1_sec3
Republicans calling for impeaching Judges are blowing it. It is all theater, as “airedalesrule” previously stated.
Republicans, like Democrats, succumb to urges, whims, lust for power, and are detached from American voters. Voters don’t want judges impeached, they want a free country, protected borders, an economy where they benefit, low violent crime, and so forth. The federal judges in question of course are cherry picked by the plaintiffs, which again is no surprise. But as Professor Turley mentions, that’s why the US Court of Appeals exists. Better to wait for the Court of Appeals to render a decision, and if necessary the Supreme Court to rule on this issue so that it never presents again, i.e. a circuit federal judge overruling a US president. Justice Clarence Thomas already raised this issue in his concurrence re:
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., PETITIONERS v. HAWAII, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
June 26, 2018, Thomas, J., concurring.
Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common.[1] District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/17-965/
TL;DR: let SCOTUS decide so that a Federal Circuit Judge can never again thwart a US President and the whole of Executive Branch he runs.
The chief justice has “administrative” responsibility for the lower courts. That doesnt mean he can define how they should conduct their cases or give them “rules” on how they should rule.
Your view is that the word “administrate” precludes any activity such as setting rules of conduct, boundaries, etc. Just ensure their offices are funded and they and everyone working there gets paid.
How wrong you are.
Thats exactly what it means.
Currently, the swamp is all atwitter about the DOJ abandoning the prosecution of NYC Mayor Eric Adams, and the judge in the case, one Dale Ho – a Biden appointee and of course Yale Law School grad – is not letting them. Both parties before him have agreed to dismiss the case but Judge Ho wants to hold an “evidentiary hearing”, apparently never having heard of the “case and controversy” clause and the prohibition against issuing advisory opinions.
When the prosecution wants to drop its prosecution, the judge signing off on that is the quintessential ministerial act, a mere formality recognizing what already is. I think Judge Ho should be impeached, because of course he HAS heard of the case and controversy clause and the prohibition against issuing advisory opinions. So, it’s not just a case of him disagreeing while being flagrantly wrong; he is abusing his position and acting in bad faith, to curry favor with swamp dwellers and their fellow travelers. He’s betting that’s a good career move, and it would be fitting to show him how wrong he is about that, not to mention the deterrence against others on the bench (of which there are many) who are so willing to tap into TDS in the course adjudicating cases.
But I’d be interested to know other opinions.
I’m not aware of all the context and nuance regarding both the prosecution and the attempt to dismiss.
Impeachment should never be used as the Democrats have fully adopted, as a political weapon to smear. But in the case of how Judge Emmet Smith conducted his trial of General Mike Flynn and then attempted to conduct his own prosecution after the DOJ dropped the prosecution – THAT is conduct that begs for impeachment.
If the Chief Justice will not reign in these lower court judges that ordinary everyday Americans without a JD recognize as acting as partisan political, what then?
What about the Hunter Biden judge who didn’t accept a plea deal like no other? Should she have simply signed off on it to avoid subsequent impeachment?
You’ll have to refresh my recollection on that one. I don’t know what you are referring to.
That is not what happened. She simply asked the prosecutor for details on exactly what the deal was, and put him on the spot. The prosecutor couldn’t admit openly what a corrupt deal it was, so he lied about it and said it wasn’t so bad, but the defense said that’s not what we agreed to, and if that’s the deal then it’s off. The plan had been to hide these details and then pretend it was a surprise.
Hi JMRJ!!!
I saw your comment and wrote two things above. This Ho stuff is a repeat of what happened five years ago when another Rogue Judge, Emmett Sullivan, pulled the same crap with General Flynn. Sullivan appointed some idiot named Gleeson as Amicus, and there was a lot of motions back and forth. A DC panel vacated the appointment, then Sullivan appealed, and then the DC en banc reversed that, and then Trump finally pardoned Flynn, and still Sullivan tried to hang on. It was stupid ugly, the whole schmear.
I bet that Ho is trying to force Trump to pardon Adams, to free Adams to do what he wants, and maybe not help with deportation. On this one Hochul is butting in, too. It could become stupid ugly too.
So the judge taps Paul Clement to provide amicus briefing on the questions involved. I hope Mr. Clement does the right thing and tells the judge he has no business sticking his nose into this. No jurisdiction, no case or controversy, and no advisory opinions.
I trust Paul Clement to state the law correctly. If he thinks the law is not as you claim it is, then he’s almost certainly right and you’re wrong.
And the opposite is more likely true: Milhouse is most likely wrong. Yet again tonight. Too much vodka after supper, Milhouse?
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The expansion of judicial authority by non-Article III courts raises significant constitutional concerns. It is imperative that the Supreme Court exercises its role in addressing high-level cases that implicate fundamental legal principles. Additionally, modifications to the constitutional framework—such as changes to the election of Senators and the imposition of the income tax—have altered the balance of power and potentially encroached upon rights such as privacy and the protection against self-incrimination.
Furthermore, the widespread use of civil asset forfeiture exemplifies how legal mechanisms can be abused, often stripping individuals of property without due process. These cases are frequently appealed, yet courts tend to uphold forfeitures under legal doctrines that resemble admiralty jurisdiction, where property itself is treated as the guilty party. As we move further from the original constitutional design, we must carefully consider the legal and structural consequences of these shifts, particularly as they relate to fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Hmm. It’s been a few years since I have had anything to do with vessel forfeiture under admiralty jurisdiction (I belonged to a sailing club–we got caught up in an action regarding international waters between Canada and U.S. in the latter 1990s.) But, to my knowledge, asset seizure rules under admiralty jurisdiction were greatly improved in the early 2000s, re:, e.g., judicial scrutiny, notice to asset owners, etc. Are you saying that non-admiralty asset seizure provides less protection and have not kept up?
“Are you saying that . . .”
Yes. IJ has litigated numerous such cases. For more, see here:
“The Institute for Justice aims to curtail, and ultimately, abolish civil forfeiture, one of the gravest abuses of power in the country today.”
https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/
Hello Sam: Here are the supplemental rules I was referring to, regarding admiralty asset forfeitures. (I was thinking it changed @ 2001-02, but apparently not until 2006.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/title_XIII
Of course, replevin-type actions involving civil forfeiture are controlled by 18 U.S. Code § 983.
You reference efforts by IJ, but IJ is apparently dealing with attempts to standardize varying STATE actions, with different procedural and substantive requirements therein.
Accordingly, the Anonymous comment to which I responded must be referring to the lack of consistency among states.
Non-Article 3 “courts” do not exercise judicial power. They are agencies within the executive branch and exercise only executive power.
How do you deal with activists posing as judges? An elected President has only 4 years time. He cannot waste a year or two in the court by meaningless cases and with activists posing as judges.
Why do we need impeachment for federal judges? It should be easier to remove them.
These “posers” went to law school, practiced as lawyers, were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Was Cannon an activist judge when she slow walked Trump’s case?
Slow walked? I disagree.
Franke said These “posers” went to law school, practiced as lawyers, were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
The illegitimate Special Counsel who appeared before Judge Cannon who you’re referring to? It’s a LIE to claim that he was either nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate to be eligible to be a Special Counsel when they hauled his Lavarentiy Beria-worshipping fascist ass back to America from the Hague where they’d hidden him. That’s why his police state fascist ass got kicked to the curb, Franke.
Was Cannon an activist judge when she slow walked Trump’s case?
Remember when Franke was complaining that the FBI, and then latter AG Merrick Garland, were “slow walking” even indicting The First Felon Kid – to the point the statute of limitations expired on the most serious felonies committed by the junior partner in Biden White House Crime LLC?
Yeah, nobody else remembers Franke complaining about that.
Nor did Franke sob and whine about ‘slow walking’, when “the ‘posers’ who went to law school, practiced as lawyers, were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate” deliberately allowed the statute of limitations to run out to allow that slimy middle aged felon to escape.
Meanwhile, Franke claims that because Judge Cannon didn’t give Jack Smith a rocket docket and all the exemptions he got elsewhere to race to trial with Trump back in Democrat courts, Franke claims she “slow walked”Jack Smith’s police state fascist persecution of Trump.
Franke is a classic Cheap Fake American Democrat. A liar by declaration, insinuation, and omission.