I have previously written against calls to impeach federal judges who have ruled against the Trump Administration in the issuing of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions. The latest target of such calls in the House is District Court Judge James Boasberg, who issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. GOP members are making a mistake in engaging in the same impeachment craze that took hold of the Democratic members in prior years (and continues this year). The way to respond to such rulings is to appeal them, not to try to remove judges (which is neither warranted nor likely).
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 (and Elon Musk) have joined this frenzy in calling for the impeachment of judges who ruled against Trump’s earlier executive orders and programs. Elon Musk has supported this effort.
The Trump Administration was fully aware that the executive proclamation invoking the use of the Alien Enemies Act to detain and deport members of Tren de Aragua would be controversial. While the Administration believes that it can establish the legal basis for such use of the largely dormant law, the issuing of a temporary restraining order within hours of the EO was not unexpected. We expect an expedited and intense appeal process to now unfold.
The Alien Enemies Act is best known as one of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 used by the Adams Administration. I discuss the abuse of those acts in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
The case presents a number of novel issues. First, as a threshold matter, is whether a presidential determination of the underlying criteria is even reviewable by the federal courts. Some argue, and the Trump Administration is likely to assert, that this is a political question that is heavily laden with international and national security determinations.
Second, assuming that it is reviewable, the Act was designed for deportations in wartime or in cases of “invasion.” We have previously discussed how states sought to broaden the definition of “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4, the so-called Guarantee Clause. The Trump Administration is arguing that Tren de Aragua is different because it is being used or directed by the Venezuelan government. Trump has previously alleged that the radical regime is emptying its prisons to undermine the United States. Under this argument, the gang is being used by a “foreign nation or government.”
The treatment of this as an invasion could also trigger other powers from states closing the borders unilaterally to even a move to suspend habeas corpus.
The point is only that there are good faith arguments on both sides to be made in the courts. That is why we have independent courts and the finest judicial system in the world.
I have criticized Judge Boasberg, who was involved in the controversial FISA surveillance during the first Trump term and made a poor choice of the attorney tasked with investigating that matter. I also criticized him in prior treatment of pro-life litigants in a case reversed by the D.C. Circuit. However, he has also ruled against Trump critics).
The response for the Administration should be to seek an expedited appeal. The district court cannot drag out a TRO very long before issuing an order that can be appealed.
This country is facing novel issues and the Administration is not surprisingly trying to use novel means to address them. I expect that it will prevail in many of these initial fights while losing others. That is part of the process in a nation committed to the rule of law.
The Trump Administration can appeal and leave impeachment out of it.
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.”
I like and read both Turley and McCarthy, and they both make sound legal arguments always choosing legal remedies, as though our laws are respected by all and common sense will win out. Obviously, the last few years haven’t supported that theory. If Trump were someone else with less means, he’d be in prison.
As others have said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Just in my lifetime, the preservation of our values and way of life have, at times, depended more on soldiers than lawyers.
I wonder what Turley and McCarthy would say if Putin told 100,000 Russian soldiers to stack their arms, dress in civilian clothes and walk into Poland.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
No, it isn’t.
The Constitution is a clear fundamental law that the judicial branch ignores and defies repeatedly.
How did this order violate the Constitution? Congress has power over immigration.
Congress has the power over immigration and legislation. And not execution. Read Article 2, Section 1. The executive power is vested “in a President.” No other branch or legislation enjoys any authority or legal basis to usurp or exercise any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power. The redundant and unconstitutional Alien Enemies Act states the obvious that the president has the executive power to order an alien to depart out of the territory of the United States. Well, duuuuuuh!!!!
Sorry Jonthan ITS TIME to Impeach these Radical Left Wing/DEM Judges especially in the DC ciourts. Time to send a Message. Justice Roberts needs to step up along with the Supreme Court and say enough is enough, if not your going to see this continue. the Left/Lawfare/Eisen/Soros crowd run around Judge shopping on every item. Time to set the hard rules and law. Roberts had a chance earlier and he failed now time to come down hard and tell the courts they cannot rule the country. Congree must take action as well and reform the DC Courts. But it would be nice Judges are impeached for their Left Wing radical policies.
“. . . the Alien Enemies Act to detain and deport members of Tren de Aragua . . .” (JT)
I don’t understand why the administration needs AEA to arrest and deport Tren gang members. That organization has already been designated as a “transnational criminal organization” and as a “foreign terrorist organization.” That, alone, is sufficient to arrest and deport its members. What grounds does AEA add that doesn’t already exist?
I wish lin would see this question and give an answer, because I don’t get it either. Is it because there’s no due process, like a two-minute hearing (and endless appeals)?
Likely the greatest constitutional crisis in American history (involving both parties) is constitutionally oath-sworn government officials and their contractors not following the U.S. Constitution.
This is vitally important. The entire premise of having a written constitution is that it’s a legally binding “contract” between citizens and their government. Citizens have a constitutional right to be left alone, as long as we follow the U.S. Constitution and it’s circumscribing local, state and federal laws.
This “contract” (U.S. Constitution) was designed to prevent anarchy and rebellion. It limited, prescribed and restrained government authority. Especially the First Amendment legally allowed citizens to contact their government representatives in Congress.
But government officials also have legal obligations under their employment contract.
In real practice, government officials/contractors operate a shadow government that is contrary to the American Oath of Office. They all violate their Oath of Office but since everybody does it, nobody enforced the law breaking.
Innocent citizens harmed – even citizens operating within the legal boundaries of the Constitution and written laws – must initiate a costly and lengthy court challenge to force governing officials to follow the law and follow their own Oath of Office. Sometimes called a Writ of Mandamus – forcing officials to honor their oath of office.
Although most government officials/contractors are very good people, the bureaucratic systems they are forced to be employed in can produce extraordinarily evil results. The sum of the system is lesser than its parts. Great government officials can create evil outcomes due to the systematic issues.
When these bureaucratic systems make mistakes harming, destroying and even killing the wrong people. This bureaucratic “system” takes 50 to 100 years to apologize to its victims or compensate them in any way.
Since it takes 50 to 100 years of unspeedy justice, the bureaucratic “system” has absolutely no deterrent effect to prevent future abuses of power. It will happen again.
For example: today in 2025, almost 90 years since World War Two, most constitutional experts would consider Democrat FDR to have committed “war crimes” by forcibly removing native born American citizens in California from their homes at gunpoint with rifles and bayonets. Then housing American citizens in unclean horse stables in California then shipped off to detention camps in the Arkansas swamps. These Americans were falsely imprisoned (not meeting temporary Habeas corpus standards).
The same unconstitutional actions were not used against American citizens of German descent, it was indeed about racism. This made FDR’s actions a war crime. The system never adjudicated, never indicted and never convicted for war crimes.
After the war in 1945, the bureaucratic “system” never apologized to these citizens that lost their homes, employment, reputations. The federal government gave these innocent Americans $25 cash and a bus ticket, although most were now homeless and had no job history to obtain a good job. After it was too late, the government did compensate a small percentage of living survivors this century.
These results of these bureaucratic systems are extremely evil from any perspective – evil from a Judeo-Christian view and evil from the Originalist view or the Constructionist view of the Founding Fathers. They created this constitutional rule of law system to prevent these type evils. Government systems have legal responsibilities also.
Since the government officials didn’t follow their Oath of Office employment contract during World War Two. George W. Bush did almost the exact same thing with Guantanamo Bay. Most detainees were not even on a battlefield, many on different continents and no legitimate evidence linked to terrorism. The Bush Administration itself released about 86% without any charges whatsoever, after telling us these were the “worst of the worst” – justifying an unconstitutional prison in a foreign nation.
In addition to an illegal prison in Cuba, local, state and federal government systems “covertly blacklisted” at least 40,000 American citizens on U.S. soil. Destroying their job histories, reputations and entire lives. Today after the January 6 insurrection that total number of blacklisted citizens could easily exceed 100,000 innocent Americans. This program continues today in 2025 and none of these innocent Americans have received an official apology from the U.S. Department of Justice or been made financially whole again. Absolutely nothing was learned from FDR’s war crimes of World War Two.
Today in 2025, Trump is trying to restore this same unconstitutional prison to hold immigrants using military planes costing at least 3 times in taxpayer dollars for a photo op.
The lesson of American history – the legal contract between American citizens and the government only applies to the citizens. Government bureaucratic systems are incapable of learning or following their Oath of Office. Tax dollars should primarily be used to reform the bureaucratic “systems” since both parties do it.
Good read professor, but a word of caution. You are a well respected professor with many readers. This administration wont tolerate such dissent long without profound retribution.
Isn’t this the same judge that gave Clinesmith a slap on the wrist for defrauding the FISA court? Impeachment should be just the starting point of the justice he deserves.
Review the rules for impeachment. The Senate convicts. A minimum of two-thirds of that body is required for conviction. The Republicans don’t have 60 members in the Senate. The frenzy is simply useless and a waste of the House’s time and resources. Let’s permit the Constitution to work and focus on passing Trump’s agenda in the House. Let’s save the fights in the Senate for those substantive matters. Yes, without a 60 vote majority, the Democrats can filibuster those matters, but let’s exhaust themselves on that – it will catch the attention of the electorate.
Well, we have been invaded over the past 4 years and there always was more than sufficient laws on the books to cut off the invasion and that has been demonstrated in the past 6-7 weeks with the lower border invasion cut to a veritable trickle by the new administration. So should we impeach the judge who has made a very sketchy decision here, apparently the suit was filed even before the executive order was signed. Or should we try to charge the previous administration with treason with aiding and abetting an invasion. I’m not sure that a presidential pardon would exempt anyone from treason charges, even if it was an official act.
Not to mention the apparent failure of the previous administration to deport approx 2.5 million people who have already had their day in immigration court and have been ordered to be deported. Yet they still reside in the US.
And then there are the deaths of American citizens in assaults and outright murders, by the hand of illegal aliens.
So where exactly where should we start?
The people voted for this and want it done. If the courts fail to “read the room” and continue to blockade the people’s choices here, then they risk their own credibility. How many citizens do we have to lose to illegal aliens before people take matters into their own hands.
What is wrong with the court allowing non-citizens to be kicked out and then allowed to return IF they win the court case. If the illegal loses the case, then he is already where he needs to be.
You all must remember that one of the signature reasons for the Declaration of Independence was the abuse of the American colonists by the King’s judges and magistrates. What matter if a judge answers to a King and not the law or a political party and not the law.
We have had to put up with the nonsense for 12 of the last 16 years, so again, Where should we start?
The US is not being invaded. The rest of your post gets worse from there.
The US was being invaded. Biden let it happen. Only when polling showed illegal immigration was a major concern of American voters, did Biden, kinda, started doing something about it. After a few million illegals invaded.
Franke, what alternative do you suggest for the word invaders when referring to criminals who illegally crossed our border? Do you believe housing criminals and rapists in your sister’s neighborhood is a good idea?
You frequently object to word choices or make empty statements, yet you fail to offer solutions or better terms.
S. Meyer,
Well said. And you really hit the nail on the head; They have no solutions. They want to maintain the status quo which is better for them as they benefit from the fraud, waste and abuse.
GEB (I always think of you as GEM because your comments are true gems!)
I’m not sure that a presidential pardon would exempt anyone from treason charges, even if it was an official act
The only exception to the presidential pardon I can find in the Constitution is impeachment. IMO, it’s because impeachment is a political act and not criminal. Although, some charges can be criminal charges.
“. . . we have been invaded over the past 4 years . . .”
Sure. My garden has been invaded by aphids. Therefore, invoke AEA.
You’re playing games with words. AEA is a *wartime* power. Equivocating over the word “invaded” does not magically make immigration a war.
At what other time in the history of the United States have millions and millions of unvetted, uninvited people came into our Country? Would our ancestors have considered it an invasion? Yes….they would have and would have taken the necessary steps to stop it and return them by force, if necessary, back to their home countries. The last administration allowed and encouraged this travesty upon us, and people need to be held accountable.
Our ancestors were the invaders.
“At what other time . . .”
Fascinating. Though utterly irrelevant to my comment — which had nothing to do with immigration policy, and everything to do with the fact that equivocation is a fallacy. One that you seem fond of, but that even the dimmest Founder would never have committed.
“apparently the suit was filed even before the executive order was signed”
That was what i thought I had read. IANAL, so I do not know whether or not that impacts the legality of the judge’s decision. However, if it does negate his ruling, and he was, or should have been, knowledgeable that he was acting outside of the law, to me, that would be more than sufficient grounds to proceed with impeachment.
Okay. I get it. However, something MUST be done regarding these activist entities whose sole existence is the destruction of our country as we know it. EVERY time their attempts are thwarted, they go down their handy-dandy list of like minded activists judiciary and BOOM…in the timeframe of a sneeze there’s a TRO. I am TIRED of my DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT being undermined by an ACTIVIST JUDICIARY.
A judge making the President follow the law is not an activist judge.
Tucson Festival of Books | C-SPAN
Open Forum with Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley (“The Indispensable Right”) discussed why he believes free speech is under threat and took viewer calls.
This event took place at the 2025 Tucson Festival of Books.
By: Peter Slen – C-SPAN Book TV ~ March 15, 2025
https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/open-forum-with-jonathan-turley/656569
Video Link: https://tinyurl.com/5n7wysuz
Correct, they should not impeach. That said if the SCOTUS had a solid constitutional majority it would slap these district judges down for overstepping their authority. 3 coequal branches that are supposed to be “checks and balances” not dictating to the Executive.
“if the SCOTUS had a solid constitutional majority it would slap these district judges down for overstepping their authority”
“Slap down” in what manner? SCOTUS has no direct authority over lower courts established by Congress. Read your Constitution: Section III, Article 2. On most matters, and for most of the poor decisions that are being made by activist judges, SCOTUS is the ultimate appellate court, and cannot act except upon chain of appeal of the court of original jurisdiction, the lower court. Furthermore, there is no Constitutionally articulated power, as far as I can see, for the Supreme Court to as much as even reprimand the judge of a lower court; they appear to be limited to making the folly of that judge clear by the wording of their decision overruling him. Having said that, I believe Congress would have the power to establish a system by which Federal appellate court judges could be reprimanded, punished, and removed, without requiring a Constitutional amendment to create that system, and I think that would be a very damned good idea.
The leftist judges are likely engaging in sedition. The judges are eviscerating the Constitutional authority of the President in obvious acts to limit or eliminate his Article II powers and the power of the United States Citizens who lawfully elected him.
The Supreme Court has a Constitutional duty to end the lawless actions of the inferior courts keeping them reigned in. If this Judicial lawlessness continues the courts run a real risk of becoming irrelevant, ending the rule of law and our nation.
The Judge has sided with terrorists. He should be arrested and prosecuted.
Sensible person: If you guys use nerve gas and chemical weapons on us, then we are going to use nerve gas and chemical weapons on you!
Un-sensible people: If you guys use nerve gas and chemical weapons on us, we will NOT use nerve gas and chemical weapons on you, because that would make us just as bad as you!
These judges are exceeding their authority. A few Constitutional checks for this: the president can use his Constitutional check authority and ignore the opinion of this judge; Congress can limit or eliminate inferior courts; SCOTUS can smack them down; Congress can use its ultimate check authority and impeach this judge for unconstitutional actions.
The judiciary is not the final arbiter on Constitutionality. All branches have Constitutional authority to determine Constitutionality.
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Jefferson Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Jefferson Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
I agree. Without some rein in on the courts, the liberals and democrats have weaponized the power of ONE Judge to usurp the power of the other branches of the govt.
The courts have, over and over affirmed the jurisdiction of the Executive branch over Immigration, even to the detriment of overruling states that wish to enforce federal immigration law! This judge shopping MUST be be reigned in.
Why does it seem like they are not looking at the damage thats being done by participating in these frivolous, time consuming and money wasting cases? How many Americans who have actual and important (to them) cases that are now being pushed back( assuming) to have to deal with these ridiculous lawfare aimed at the president and subsequently his supporters?
In what other way would you like Dems to show how much they love you?
Just be thankful for not being left stranded for 9 months in the ISS. Dems are quite willing for you to give up your life for them/Dem and their purposes.
??
Your comments regarding the proposed impeachment of Judge Boasberg are not surprising. However, could you describe hypothetical circumstances where an impeachment and conviction might be warranted? Matt Brodie
While it would be nice to deport these gang members quickly without a hearing, the alternative is to just give them a hearing. That way no one can argue that due process was denied. More likely than not, the hearings would be very quick.
Because a hearing would show how weak the government’s case is.
Biggest difference between the D’s and R’s in the impeachment realm is that D’s seek them for clear illegality while R’s seek them for reasons of personality and opinion. Only one party is interested in governing as a representative democracy anymore, and obviously, it’s not the R’s.
Broasburg is fully correct with his decision….
Now watch the magats snarl at what I just said, proving of course that I’ve touched a nerve.
Incorrect! Anonymous! Says it all. Have a good day nerd.
You have a good day as well, magat.
MAGAs are fascists.
Fascists want to censor others. Fascists want to fire anyone who does not conform to “gender affirming care” nonsense. Fascists cannot and will not allow other viewpoints. They have to resort to shouting down others. Fascists want to mandate what things you can own. Fascists want to tell you, you do not have the right to raise your child. The state does. Democrats are the fascists. We see through them for the fascists they are. And they are losing to MAGA.
That, ^^, was me. Fat fingered my email addy.
No worries Farmer. Your cluelessness is abundantly evident, announced or unannounced.
You b like to censor others, aka, fascist! Learn to read
Ok maggot! I fixed your spelling for ya dummy
Clear illegality …. Hahahahahah that’s the biggest joke of the day! What a stooge 😂
I, too, appreciate the dark comedy in clear illegality…, too bad you’re incapable of recognizing it.
One head of,state asking another to investigate why a corrupt politician started paying the crackhead son of the former VP one million dollars a year would seem to be a valid way to handle a sensitive issue.
Doesn”t just sound like a shake down…, it was a shake down. My sympathies for your inability to recognize reality.
Trying to provoke huh? The stupids will bite or course and respond with insults. Par for this blog.
Snarl? No. 🤣 Your comment is a great reminder to constantly thank God for our countries many blessings. Most notably, the blessing of an increasing majority in this country who are rejecting the heinous Leftist cult that has consumed the Democratic party.
Amen!
Nice travelogue through the fever dreams of the right, Olly. The right isn’t getting more popular, they’re getting screamed at during Town Halls. And God isn’t blessing you for surrendering your principles and supporting a serial sexual abuser intent on destroying the nation’s economy and standing in the world writ large. Gigantic implementation of standard Russian disinformation tactics aside, you’re showing all markings of being a cult that has lost all sense of being able to decipher reality.
I’d like to reprise and paraphrase the lyrics to that old 60s and 70s hit by Neil Sedaka, “Breaking Up is Hard To Do.” My version, the 2025 version, retitles it, “ Cleaning Up is Hard To Do,” and gives Trump the award-winning claim to vocalizing its recent reprise.
The original 1960s version had these lyrics:
They say that breaking up is hard to do
Now I know, I know that it’s true.
Don’t say that this is the end.
Instead of breaking up I wish we were making up again
I beg of you, don’t say goodbye
Can’t we give our love another try?
Come on baby, let’s start a new
‘Cause breaking up is hard to do.
The Trump 2025 version goes like this:
They say that cleaning up is hard to do
Now I know, I know that it’s true
Don’t say that this is the end.
Instead of cleaning up I wish we were making up again
I beg of you, don’t say goodbye
Can’t we give America another try?
Come on baby, let’s start a new
‘Cause cleaning up is hard to do.
In my opinion, Trump has three objectives, and he has started on one, begun another, and is leaving the third one for last. The first was his own house, whose stoop, as Voltaire said, must be swept clean before telling a neighbor to clean his. He is cleaning up the Executive Branch and cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse.
The second wing of this cleaning effort is the judiciary. By filing cases and opposing those filed by plaintiffs and others, he is exposing to the public the political agendas of the courts to thwart his power and the Constitution which vests that power in him and him, alone. Yes, the early returns from the judicial branch suggest a good cleaning effort there will be well rewarded and greatly appreciated by the public. He will use the judiciary to clean up the judiciary by appealing incorrect political decisions to the appeals courts and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court.
The third and final venue for the Trump cleanup crew will be Congress and it already knows what’s coming and is going out of its way to look and sound ridiculous, so much so that even some of their old timers are laughing at them (and crying at the same time). They see and know what’s happening and can do nothing but cry in their coffee. Even Schumer’s fabled hat has run out of rabbits!
So, kudos to Neil Sedaka and the latest version of his hit song because we all know that “cleaning up is hard to do.”
Very stupid comment. Don’t quit you day job.
I strongly doubt you’re an authority on keeping a job.
Anonymous 10:25 am
Actually JJc makes good sense. In effect let the Judiciary hoist itself on its own petard. It gives the Trump administration plenty of acts to appeal and set precedent if it wins at the SCOTUS level and also allows the progressive judiciary to look as ridiculous as the progressive party has looked, of late. Not a bad plan. It may, in effect, give Trump wider lanes to work in. In days gone by some Dems recognized this and preferred to not appeal losses at the circuit court level in order to avoid a SCOTUS setting precent. NY and some of their gun legislation comes to mind. The song of Neil Sedaka, well not among my favorites but no big deal.
Anonymous’ “Stupid” comment is is even worse and nearly imbecilic because it is so predictable, offers no support in lyrics or prose and is merely reflexive (meaning it is generated at the spinal column and never engages higher brain function, if there is any there)
As a housewife of 52 years, I would say that there are times when cleaning isn’t feasible and you just have to haul in the demolition crew and start anew. I don’t know if we have the time and resources to allow all the petrified, corrupt functionaries of our various branches and levels of government to self-clean ( that is retire, be un-reelected, or just be tried and convicted of their crimes) all the while the activist judges drag everything down knowing that there are only 3+ years for Trump to clean these Augean stables. The progs are playing a waiting game, they are laying siege to our nation hoping to win a war of attrition.
Whim: I understand your frustration but blowing everything up and starting all over is not a good option. The Constitution is a remarkable document that provides a good roadmap for getting where we want to go. Yes, the activist judges are a pain but they can and will be appealed and applelate courts must look first at the law and then the merits. Often, the lower courts rule on the merits and ignore the law. And if the appeals courts fail in their jobs, then there’s always the Supreme Court. If Trump continues on this path for three years, he will set the stage for JD Vance to take over for another eight years and continue or finish the job. With the Democrats literally forced into repudiating common sense, the people are awakening to the frauds perpetrated by the likes of the “Squad”: and other Democrat factions that are anti-American, antisemite, and anti-free speach. In fact, if they had any sense, they would change their name to Anticrats. 🙂
JJC,
Another great comment.
JJc-very much agrees
JJC,
Great comment.
Personally, I would rather see this go to court and get appealed.
Me, too. We’re only two months in and already hitting the panic button. For Pete’s sake.
This process of sanitizing America will take years, not weeks, so patience and determination are called for. Let the Democrats play the political infants.
Diogenes,
Well said. At least we now have a president who is actually doing something for the betterment of America and Americans.
Diogenes, while we have to pick and choose our fights carefully, we must recognize that to continue the fight through to midterms, speed is essential.
Therefore pick fights that are winnable or necessary. Will impeachment work. I don’t have the slightest idea because I don’t understand the law or its prior use. Therefore, the warning I gave before holds. If you attack the beast, you must kill it or it will bite you repeatedly.
My guess in this case, like yours, Upstate’s and jjc’s, 14 days doesn’t sound like a long time.
Another, and less time consuming method (rather than enriching lawyers as they submit appeals, etc.) would be to pass more timely legislation to deal with this continueing problem of illegal migration.
Or a wide and tall fence. Manned and armed. Could use USAID monies.
Here’s a simple solution. Relocate those TdA darlings to Boasberg’s neighborhood.
Let’s see how he likes it.
Excellent idea. The nimbys will be screeching from the rooftops. The gangs will get the #CapeCod treatment.
I’m sure Boasberg will welcome them with open arms.
That’s you best response? You stupid child.