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.”
Famous last quotes:
“Mexico will pay for the wall. Not American taxpayers”
“The price of eggs and inflation will drop on the first day in office”
“The Russia-Ukraine War will be settled the first week”
“We will only deport the most dangerous criminals”
“The price of gasoline and automobiles will drop right after Inaugural Day”
“Cutting government agencies will balance the annual budget deficit and drastically reduce longterm debt”
Sounds more like “the dog ate my homework” than actual governing!
Our institutions have been infiltrated and honeycombed by Marxists, who, while hell-bent on destroying the United States, like to cloak themselves in its traditions when cornered. There is no free and fair way to dislodge such a threat. Cancer surgery can be bloody and painful, and sometimes healthy tissue is lost along with the tumors. Death is worse. That’s where we are as a nation…
I agree 100%! Trump and all his sycophant GOP Putin supporters need to be resected from the body of American politics.
It sounds good in the words but but you can’t trust democrats congress to stop. wth. It’s tit for tat. Democrats are out of office for all of their bazaar far out in the left field. Tell us how to stop it this madnes..
The rubicon has already been crossed. Jonathan Turley is defending the lawfare industry because he is a part of it.
“Judges” ruled that Trump could be taken off the ballot.
A “judge” ruled that Trump had to pay half a billion for doing real estate in NY.
A “judge” decided that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll with zero evidence, and must pay 87 million dollars.
A “judge” told a jury they don’t have to agree on what crime was committed, allowing a false conviction.
Unfortunately, we can’t take judges seriously anymore in this country,
Case in point Matt Kacsmaryk!
Crooked judges as it go. Must be removed. Has anyone read states claim re birthright? POTUS forbade State Department issuing passports to illegals. Which state is legible for a personal document such as passport? No standing. Case closed. Illegal alien pregnant woman from Venezuela due in August wants TRO. Where is the born child on hand? But Mockingbird media hysteria must go on.
No need to impeach, Trump should fire them. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it. “Shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. Interfering with the executive executing his prerogatives is good enough reason.
No, it is not, and he has no authority to fire them. If he dares to purport to fire a judge he will be held in contempt. The court will send a court officer to arrest him, and order the Secret Service to allow him to be arrested. The Secret Service will obviously obey the court order, as they are legally required to do.
He should reassign them to a District in Antartica, problems solved. If that fails, introduce them to Woody Harrelson’s Dad.
#74. In the new 3rd world impeachment has become common.
Never heard of impeaching a judge. Never heard congress people shouting at judges in public.
Vulgarity is common now
If you’ve never heard of impeaching a judge then you’re just ignorant and should not comment on the topic.
Jonathan: Your hero Elon Musk is in the news everyday–but not in a good way. It’s probably because Musk has gone full-on Nazi and his policy choices, such as they are, are opposed by a majority of Americans. And Musk is reviled in most of Europe because of his support for ne-Nazi parties. And fall out from Musk’s fall from grace can be seen in a number of metrics.
1. Starting the year Tesla sales are down 45% in Europe. The car company started the year at about $400 per share. As of yesterday it was down to $330.53. Added to this problem Musk uses his Tesla stack to borrow money. But he is limited in the number of shares he can use as collateral. And much of Musk’s stock is locked up in litigation over his $50 billion annual salary which a Delaware judge has already ruled is illegal because Musk deceived investors.
2. And polls show Musk’s favorability with the public is in the tank–not only here and in Europe but throughout the world. In the UK Musk is disfavored by 70% of the public. In Germany it’s even worse–80%. All over Europe there are posters on lamp posts with a pic of Musk standing up in one of Tesla convertibles giving the Nazi salute–with the caption “Goes from 0 to 1939 in 3 seconds…Tesla the Swasticar”. Pretty funny!
Musk knows he’s disliked here and in Europe. That’s probably why he asked DJT to make his large security detail part of the US Marshalls Service so his security people could carry loaded weapons. Musk also knows he is safe as long as he has DJT’s back. I suspect he will need DJT’s protection in the months ahead.
SCROLL OVER COUNTRY HERE!
BAN FOR LIFE!
Hi Professor. Why do you assume, as you seem to do, that the decisions of these judges opposing President Trump’s Constitutional executive powers are within the scope and authority of the judiciary?
Best regards,
Reece Newman
THE EXECUTIVE POWER, THE WHOLE EXECUTIVE POWER, AND NOTHING BUT THE EXECUTIVE POWER, SO HELP YOU GOD.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The executive power is vested exclusively in the President.
No other person, official, or entity has any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power.
Executive power may not be legislated or adjudicated.
____________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
The solution here is so simple that I am surprised Prof. Turley ignores it. Congress can simply amend the jurisdiction of federal district courts to remove all DOGE related matters. Next, Congress can and should carve out all matters seeking nationwide injunctions from the district courts’ jurisdiction and create a theee judge panel made up of judges from 3 different states to hear them. Problem solved.
[IF] Taylor Swift whacked boyfriend Travis Kelce intentionally and in a premeditated manner of First Degree Murder, during a NFL Mid-Season game right on the 50 yards line in front of all the TV cameras Live, because he was sleeping with no less than 4 Kansas City Chief Cheerleaders and not spending enough time with his Sugar Mama Taylor.
And when the case went to Trial by Jury it had 100x times the coverage that the O.J Simpson trial had (Ultra High Profile) ,
with a Jury of Swifties and Judge, all which were bribed by the Defendant (via her Managers) to arrive at a Not Guilty Verdict.
Due to the obvious miscarriage: Should the Judge be impeached ??? Yes/No
[Note: A correct or wrong answer will denote 70% of your Final Grade]
Be Careful – The Swifties are watching You!
If you can prove that he accepted bribes, then that is misbehavior and grounds for removal. If you can’t, then no, you cannot remove him simply because you disagree with his rulings. That would destroy the independence of the judiciary, which is a bedrock principle of our constitutional system. I think SCOTUS would rule that the removal was unconstitutional, and order that the judge resume his duties, holding in contempt anyone who prevented him from doing so.
#74. Treason, sabotage, espionage, sedition are national security issues. That is of economic or political systems or both.
COBAL is hackable by China, India etc creating an economic system collapse and then political collapse. Issue a national security crisis and proceed.
Once more, Professor Turley approaches the problem of judicial activism as though it is an academic exercise, or an element in a system of legal gamesmanship. His statement that “it is vital to our system to support an independent judiciary” indicates naivete at best, and duplicity at worst. Professor, our outrage is over the obvious fact that we do not have an independent judiciary. We have watched for decades how activist judges have used their power to engage in agenda politics, legal warfare and blatant support for Left Wing causes. We have witnessed judges, solitary individuals, neutralize the will of the American People expressed through the electoral process. We have seen judicial support for the most outrageous prosecutions of the President, and others, for political purposes. We’ve even coined a word to describe it. “Lawfare” is now a part of our vocabulary. Yet we are admonished to look the other way and accept this travesty in order to “support an independent judiciary” that, in reality, does not exist. How can one defend a system that is so obviously infested with a political malignancy that threatens both Liberty and Justice? How can one robed individual be allowed to betray the will of a hundred million voters? We hear glowing accolades about the safeguard of an appellate system that will protect us from a rogue judiciary. How long does it take for the appeal process to wind its way through the system? Years? A decade or so? Face facts. The American People are witnessing a travesty being foisted upon them. They are enraged more and more each day. It’s not going to take much more before they decide that this precious system of “an independent judiciary” is nothing more than a despotic device to make certain that their expressed will may be ignored without consequence? The fuse is lit. There’s not much time to quench it before it reaches the final flash point.
“No, the GOP Should Not Impeach Federal Judges Over the Trump Challenges”
“Now, some Republican members are calling for the impeachment of judges who ruled against Trump’s earlier executive orders and programs.”
“In my view, this is not an appropriate use of impeachment and could seriously undermine our constitutional system.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
“Spare the rod and spoil the child.”
Samuel Butler, 1664, ”Hudibras”
_____________________________________
Impeachment or Surrender!
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court. The communist American welfare state must have been struck down at every step of its incremental implementation. Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for and fund ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare” – ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure – omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces. Private industries may self-regulate or subject themselves to deleterious litigation.
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
American government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government itself is severely limited and restricted to facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the document of the Founders and Framers.
While I agree there should be a high standard for Judicial and Executive Branch impeachment, I disagree that these activist Judges that clearly have direct conflicts and clearly rule outside the Constitution should not be impeached. I also believe that any Prosecutor and Judge that clearly and maliciously violates their Oath and the Constitutional Rights of a plaintiff or defendant must not have blanket immunity!
@MRR
It’s a very sticky situation. Obama was perfectly within his rights to empower these people, just as Trump was. So what do we do? Does every single tiny, tangential issue now have to go all the way to SCOTUS, after every single election? It is a bloody mess.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
I don’t disagree: I think it’s petty, and awful, and unsustainable, but the second the modern left has power, if indeed they ever do, they will resume boot stomping us all over again. Activist judges have got to go, actions have consequences, and some people DO need to go to jail. Things that are ultimately healthy for the well-being of the country CANNOT continuously be blocked by partisan actors out of spite. How, pray tell, do we resolve this without flushing the system of decades of, and now institutionalized, corruption? An honest question. Our country will not survive this constant ping-ponging, depending upon whomever currently holds office. And in the meantime, the rest of us are just trying to live.
Unfortunately, impeachment of a Judge is the only real remedy to a judge whose decisions are far outside the range of reality and who clearly is a partisan and not an independent arbiter.
It should be used judiciously but firmly.
An ethical penalty is a mere slap on the wrist for a Judge espousing clearly partisan findings.
@Anonymous
I wish I disagreed, but everything Obama touched was toxic to our well-being (and again, I voted for him the first time; the second time, not so much), and whatever it takes to root it our might be necessary. None of it sits well with me, but it sure as heck did not start with Trump.
Does that include Judge Arthur F. Enğoron ? Seem the Bench has had a color change into terms of Liberal and Conservative Justices.
In the current parlance of our time, the new alignment is clearly tied to political constituency Democrat or Republican. High Profile cases are definitely tainted with color. Albeit the majority of Cases fall into color-blind Juris opinions. Judiciary impeachments should be allowed -only- in the most ‘corrupt circumstances’, through a measured threshold of bias. That said, the Political High Profile cases do not exemplify ‘corrupt circumstances’. (increase the weight of the case) under normal proceedings.
Egad, Turls goes from bad to worse. Let’s start with Alito flying a pro-MAGA flag at his beach house–that is a public display of partisanship that puts into question his impartiality–and it is NOT inappropriate for that to be raised as an issue as to his fitness to serve. Turls claims that Democrats have “abused” the impeachment power–based on what? Trump DID try to leverage aid to Ukraine in exchange for ginning up lies about Joe Biden, and seeking to impeach him for this was fully appropriate. Trump DID start an insurrection by spreading the Big Lie and exhorting his fans to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more.” He sat by for over 3 hours while the faithful hunted for Mike Pence, intending to lynch him and were seeking to kill Nancy Pelosi, too, all while they trashed the Capitol and spread human waste inside our symbol of freedom. No other President has ever done anything close to this–and impeachment was appropriate. NONE of these matters was politically-motivated. To the extent Turls implies that, somehow, the fat slob should get a free pass for this or that holding him to account is politically-motivated, he is just plain wrong.
Turls wants to talk about “seriously undermining” our system of government–what better example of that is Trump? Just yesterday, at a joint news conference with President Macron of France, Trump LIED about Ukraine being required to reimburse EU allies for aid they provided. President Macron immediately interrupted him and corrected him, and pointed out that the EU is holding billions in Russian assets that could be seized to cover these costs–but there is no requirement for Ukraine to reimburse the EU. So, the slob just repeated the lie again–because the pig can NEVER be wrong. He kept insisting that the EU would be getting back the cost of the weapons it provided. Macron also corrected Trump on how much aid the EU has provided–over 60%. He keeps starting fights with our allies–like Canada and Mexico–why? Trump allowed his largest campaign contributor to literally take a chainsaw to the entirety of our federal government–arbitrarily firing those charged with protecting our nuclear stockpile, cancer researchers, USAID workers, IRS workers, demanding that federal employees write out a list of their accomplishments, and the pig is trying to force Ukraine to give up rare earth minerals in exchange for US help–that was never part of the agreement to assist Ukraine. The pig ordered our UN Ambassador to vote against a UN resolution condemning Russia for invading Ukraine, and continues to repeat Russian propaganda that blames Ukraine for “starting” the war and falsely accuses Zelenskyy of being an unelected dictator. The US has NEVER done a 180 turn around by siding with a dictator like Putin and aggressor like Russia–NEVER. The hog has abdicated America’s role as the leader of the free world–so this clears the way for other countries to move in–like China. Fatso cut off food aid to starving people in Africa–which also has a lot of rare earth minerals–China will likely take this opportunity to fill the gap and get these resources. The fat one also arbitrarily commanded that the Gulf of Mexico will be renamed the “Gulf of America”, and when the AP refused to go along with his command, they were cut off from news conferences. He continues to swagger about taking over Canada as the 51st state, to take over the Panama Canal, by lying about China running the Canal and overcharging American vessels, and the lies and swagger about purchasing Greenland.
Over 60 lawsuits have been filed because the pig has engaged in unprecedented abuse of power. So, Turls is now telling Republicans not to try to impeach federal judges who have ruled against the fat one because to do so would be to do something bad like the Democrats have done. Shame on you–Turley.
Turls goes from bad to worse. Let’s start with Alito flying a pro-MAGA flag at his beach house–that is a public display of partisanship that puts into question his impartiality–and it is NOT inappropriate for that to be raised as an issue as to his fitness to serve.
Anonymous/Gigi drops it’s overly rented out pig guts starting out with a lie as always, because Alito’s WIFE – not Justice Alito – flew a Gasden flag during a neighborhood spat. Anonymous/Gigi is desperately hoping the Democrat Memory Hole prevents normal Americans from remembering that her hero, Bader-Ginsberg openly spoke out personally against Trump day after day while he was running for election.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Doubles Down on Donald Trump Criticism: ‘He is a Faker’
https://time.com/4402787/ruth-bader-ginsburg-doubles-down-on-donald-trump-criticism-he-is-a-faker/
There isn’t enough lipstick in the world to put on this gross Anonymous/Gigi pig to make it look anything other than a candidate at a vile, obscene pig party.
The superior courts, including the Supreme Court needs to act with dispatch, face the issues squarely, and not dodge the issues as so many did with election challenges.