This week, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, formally introduced impeachment articles against U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg. It was a popular move with many after a series of controversial orders by Judge Boasberg. I have been highly critical of those orders, particularly the prior orders granting Special Counsel Jack Smith’s demand for the telephone records of Republican members of Congress in the “Arctic Frost” probe. However, I disagree that his order meets the standard for impeachment under the Constitution.
In an earlier resolution in March, Rep. Gill sought to impeach Boasberg over immigration rulings against the Trump Administration. I also opposed that resolution.
I have previously written that it would be a grave mistake to misuse impeachment powers to target judges or justices.
One of the greatest abuses of members 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.
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 was also 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 share Rep. Gill’s objections to the Arctic Frost orders. It was a signature move by Smith, who has previously abused his authority by refusing to heed long-standing limits on the use of prosecutorial powers. While some Democratic members have supported the orders, it is a dangerous precedent that can expose communications with members with journalists, whistleblowers, and others.
Rep. Gill is also correct in stating in the resolution that these members were “acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.” Having previously represented the House of Representatives in court as well as individual members of Congress, I also view this as an intrusive and unjustified search.
However, this is not what impeachment was designed to address. Indeed, the Framers created a difficult process for impeachment precisely to discourage impulsive or ill-considered measures.
Boasberg allowed Smith to subpoena phone records for 10 senators and one House lawmaker. Smith also sent gag orders to Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers of the subpoena. Verizon complied with the order, but AT&T refused to do so.
In signing the orders, Boasberg acted in accordance with the Stored Communications Act. He clearly agreed with Smith that evidence of collusion or conspiracy would fall outside of the protected functions of members of Congress.
The new resolution is notably vague and speculative in critical respects. It suggests that the judge might have been actively involved with Smith in targeting Republicans: “It is unclear if Judge Boasberg facilitated the frivolous 23 subpoenas issued by Special Counsel John L. Smith.” There is no evidence to suggest that Boasberg engaged in such unethical conduct.
It then charges: “Chief Judge Boasberg does not appreciate basic statute [sic] and contributed to the legal inquiries that violate the law indicating he is unfit to 21 serve as Chief Judge.”
Members can certainly view Chief Judge Boasberg as wrong on the law. I have criticized him in past orders precisely over such disagreements. However, legal disputes are addressed in the court system, including those prior orders. Indeed, Chief Judge Boasberg was both affirmed and blocked on previous issues.
None of that rises to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The removal of a judge from the federal bench is a rare and weighty decision. It should not be based on differences over statutory interpretations, even when a judge is later reversed. Conservatives would be equally aggrieved if a Democratically controlled House impeached a judge for ruling against a Democratic president or for adopting a controversial interpretation on issues related to gun or abortion rights.
These measures can trigger tit-for-tat politics as each party harasses judges considered obstacles to their agendas. Such a pattern would undermine the independence and integrity of our court system. One can disagree — and even denounce — Chief Judge Boasberg for prior orders without resorting to this constitutional nuclear option.
Disagree with Jonthan whom I respect. IMPEACH this radical left, woke, etc. Judge.
The two political branches suffer from BPH. It’s always urgent, always looking for the restroom. Think about the mangled choreography of the Trump Jan. 6 impeachment hearings. That is why impeachment is a remedy of last resort, not first resort. The correction of judicial error by appeal is the Tamsulosin that makes it the remedy of first resort. The balance of power demands that the two political branches stay on their meds. Profligate use of impeachment also chills good judicial officers.
Mike Gilmore wrote:
“The correction of judicial error by appeal is the Tamsulosin that makes it the remedy of first resort. ”
That is theory that superficially seems plausible. The problem with it is that the way the system is structured and currently administered, the opinions rendered by the plethora of activist leftist judges constitute a critical mass of unconstitutional mandates that can never be corrected at any reasonable scale because of the time (and money) consumed in obtaining conflicting appellate decisions on appeal, and then ultimately getting SCOTUS to accept and resolve those decisions. I think that most proctologists would tell you that Tamulosin frequently does not resolve the BPH problem, leaving prostatectomy as the only viable option.
Professor I rarely disagree with your opinions, in this case I strongly disagree with your assertion that Judge Boseberg should not be a target of Impeachment proceedings. Taken his actions in the FISC (Russia Collusion FISA Warrants) and his open contempt for the Trump Administration, he clearly isn’t a non-biased arbiter of fact. His actions since 2016 show a clearly contempt for everything the Trump administration and his supporters stand for and act upon. The use of Judicial Power to overthrow the elected Government is exactly what the Framer’s were afraid of. Once fool me, twice fools us, three times is a fool a Electoate. This man is the very poster child for Impeachment of a Federal Judge. You cannot take this single act as “not what impeachment” should be used for. Taken in totality Judge Boseberg is clearly attempting to overthrow the elected throw the Government of the United States through Judicial means. I believe this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson wrote about…………………
bcofdt13, I read Turley religiously, I agree with him 95% of the time and I am so glad that I discovered this site…but I agree with you so much more than I agree with him on this issue.
This isn’t one legal disagreement, this isn’t a nuanced view of one issue, this is a judge that has been an activist for at least 9 years and one who has ignored the law and seemingly (hence an impeachment inquiry) worked actively against a sitting president while using partisan legal maneuvers and HIGHLY questionable rulings to thwart the government.
Since the Supreme Court seems unwilling to once and for all stop this lawfare against Trump and Republicans the Republicans in the political realm need to take action.
“I read Turley religiously … ” Religiously? Good lord.
That just proves how ignorant MAGA pucks like this guy are, (who spends 24 hours a day here dishing out stupidities) incapable of thinking for themselves. Turley spoon feeds you brainless children and you swallow it blindly. MAGA is doomed.
Is English not your first language? You don’t seem to understand a common English word like “religiously”. Hullbobby used it correctly, but you seem to have utterly misunderstood it.
I agree too. The impeachment is over the gag order. On what basis did Boasberg conclude that informing Ted Cruz of the subpoena would risk destruction of evidence or intimidation of witnesses? Relying on the company to appeal is an inadequate safeguard for the rights of the target. In the absence of any other effective remedy, impeachment seems appropriate.
Appropriate? Na… firing squad.
As far as the SCOTUS is concerned, Boasberg is just doing his job, no need to upset the system with frivolous attacks on a judge’s reputation.
MAGA is dead. Mark my words. You fools are toast.
“this is a judge that has been an activist for at least 9 years and one who has ignored the law and seemingly (hence an impeachment inquiry) worked actively against a sitting president while using partisan legal maneuvers and HIGHLY questionable rulings to thwart the government. ”
Unfortunately, the precedent for impeaching and convicting a Federal judge for partisan bias and deliberately misinterpreting law seems to have been set in the impeachment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 – 05, for his work at the District Court level. Chase was acquitted by the Senate, and since that time, the working rule has been that actual criminal conduct must be demonstrated to remove a Federal judge. I don’t like that standard, and I would welcome the impeachment, conviction, and removal of Boasberg, but that precedent is a tremendous hurdle to clear.
If we are to revert to original Constitutional text, I would point out that the plain text is manifestly unclear in requiring formal impeachment for the removal of a Federal judge. Article II, Section 2, discusses the Presidential appointment of executive officers, and immediately, after, in the same paragraph, states that “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That implies to me that the intent was for impeachment proceedings to be confined to the Executive Branch. Furthermore, Article III, Section 1, which establishes the Judicial Branch, states that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” Taken together, those provisions suggest to me that the Framers intended for Congress to have the authority to remove a Federal judge for whatever a majority considered to be the failure to observe an acceptable standard of behavior, which standard was to be determined by that Congress, possibly on a case-by-case basis.
It is pretty obvious to me that such a standard would require, possibly demand, the removal of a judge like Boasberg; however, we should keep in mind that it would almost certainly be applied in the future to judges who did not comply with the wishes of a Democrat-dominated Congress.
Article II, Section 2, discusses the Presidential appointment of executive officers, and immediately, after, in the same paragraph, states that “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That implies to me that the intent was for impeachment proceedings to be confined to the Executive Branch.
That does not follow at all. After all he does have the power to pardon executive officers for criminal offenses. I think the impeachment exception should be read exactly as written, to mean that his pardon power is only over criminal proceedings, not impeachment, which is a completely independent process. It goes together with the clause that double jeopardy doesn’t apply to impeachments. An officer can be tried criminally in court and also by the senate on impeachment, and this is not a problem because those are two very different things. Likewise the pardon power only applies to the former, not the latter.
My central point was that there is no clear indication in the text that removing a judge should require impeachment proceedings, and implication in A. III, S. 1, which you completely ignored, that it should not (“good behavior”).
Since no other mechanism is provided, impeachment is it. See Federalist 79 (italics mine):
“The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the house of representatives, and tried by the senate, and if convicted, may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point, which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own constitution in respect to our own judges.”
He goes on to point out that the framers deliberately did NOT provide any way to remove a judge for mere incompetence, and defends that decision.
“These measures can trigger tit-for-tat politics as each party harasses judges considered obstacles to their agendas. Such a pattern would undermine the independence and integrity of our court system.”
Turley has been making a good buck writing about the Democrat judicial lawfare against Republican politicians, parents, etc. that is now Democrat version of “the independence and integrity of our court system”. And he wants that tit-for-tit-for-another-tit to continue, the civil rights of the victims of that judicial lawfare be damned.
You are way out of line with that statement! This violence and hatred madness MUST stop! Please, for the sake of our nation and children.
For the sake? You anonymous clown.
Professor Turley says: “Having previously represented the House of Representatives in court as well as individual members of Congress, I also view this as an intrusive and unjustified search.”
And those search warrants stripped those Americans of both their 1st and 4th Amendment civil rights. And doing so through corrupt color of law is a felony. Justice Boasberg has displayed a fondness for doing that while working in conjunction with the other equally corrupt Democrat lawyers serving as Democrat Attorney Generals, FBI Directors, and Special Counsels like Mueller and Smith.
There is no honor among thieves, but there’s certainly loyalty and brotherhood between corrupt Democrat lawyers either working within the justice system or making their living writing about their comrades inside the justice system.
Don’t forget! Judge Boasberg also managed to miraculously be assigned (nudge nudge wink wink) 4 important cases that involved Trump, against all odds, in a so-called random drawing system. Boasberg even got himself assigned when he was on vacation and not in the queue to even BE assigned. That sounds illegal to me, and smacks of judicial manipulation.
I’ve pointed out before that the reason why Ben Franklin wanted impeachment included in the Constitution is because absent it available as a remedy, the only other way to remove “rogue” officials was political assassination. He pointed to the political assassination of Julius Ceaser.
So at least in Franklin’s view, and he was the person at the Constitutional Convention who championed including impeachment in the Constitution, impeachment is a substitute for political assassination. We can fairly interpret that to mean, I think, that there must be a supermajority who would vote to assassinate the official if impeachment were not available as a remedy. Given this impossibly high standard, and the highly hyper-partisan loyalty of the electorate, in practice nothing is impeachable.
So I think Turley is right. But it’s wholly dissatisfying.
What it seems to mean it that once a judge is confirmed by the Senate, there is no way to hold them accountable. At least with the legislative and executive branch it is theoretically possible to throw the “rogues” out.
So what does Turley propose for judges who have lifetime appointments? They get to rule as they please with no accountability? That can’t be right if we are to believe we are a self governing republic.
Professor Turley’s fellow Democrat lawyers and members of the same Washington DC bar association never go so corrupt as to finally cause Professor Turley to finally climb out of his badly sullied elitist academic tower and confess that, yes, this is just too much. Boasberg repeatedly uses his court room to help Democrats shred the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of Americans – but civil rights advocate Professor Turley is instead disturbed not by civil rights violations, but instead that Judge Boasberg would be impeached!
Judge Boasberg isn’t simply caught in a bit of judicial partisanship. He is a criminal. His criminality reaches back to 2016/2017 and his part as the chief FISA court judge and Democrat police state fascist on the bench to enable Obama’s Crossfire Hurricane hunt for Trump’s head. He repeatedly allowed Obama’s Attorney Generals and FBI Directors to perjure themselves in his courts while entering Obama’s felonious “Russia Dossier” into that court.
He hid those felons and their felonies, along with the illegitimate spy warrants he gave them, long after he was aware that their dossier was fraudulent and they perjured themselves before him in court. Not one was brought back before him to be sentenced for at least Contempt Of Court. Those spy warrants stripped THOUSANDS of Americans of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights while Obama and his minions in the Attorney General’s office and FBI headquarters hunted Trump to fix an election. And when that failed, trying to remove Trump from the presidency.
Boasberg did pretty much the same thing again four years later with Arctic Frost, working with he and Turley’s other corrupt members of that Washington DC bar, Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, and Christopher Wray. Boasberg happily issued warrants that he ordered not be disclosed to their victims targeting over 430 Republican politicians, their employees, and other influential Republicans including some in the news media.
These aren’t just repeatedly making the same mistake as a biased judge. This is straight out criminal police state fascism, enabled and made possible by Judge Boasberg’s criminal acts in his courtroom.
Judges as well as police officers can be indicted for the felony of Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law. Judges committing felonies like this – judges like Judge Boasberg. That’s grounds for impeachment even when the DoJ will not indict a judge.
Civil Rights Division, Department Of Justice; Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law: 18 U.S. Code § 242
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
So Professor Turley continues to turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by his fellow Democrat lawyers and members of the Washington DC Bar Association. Boasberg, Garland, Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Lynch, Yates… the entire criminal cabal of his fellow Democrat lawyers.
He also, like Judge Boasberg, also violates his bar association’s Professional Code Of Conduct in what he’s required to do when he has knowledge a fellow member of the bar is in violation of their bar’s code of conduct.
Well, why not? Can’t act within that Code Of Conduct while providing cover for these criminals. It’s template behavior for corrupt Democrats and their equally corrupt Democrat supporters:
Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Professor Turley, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
Correct. This is a long pattern of objectively criminal behavior by a judge.
Not criminal until its been proven criminal.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Turley can twist himself into any pretzel position he wants trying to defend the indefensible
“Turley can twist himself into any pretzel position he wants trying to defend the indefensible”
He’s a lawyer. Isn’t that redundant?
So do nothing with Judge Beanbag and the rest of the activists judges just let them continue to legislate from the bench? Seriously?
Margot, you own guns, live close to DC. So what’s holding you back girl?
Anonymous says:
“Margot, you own guns, live close to DC. So what’s holding you back girl?”
Thank you, Blue Banana for your morning comment. I’m sure we’ll all grow wiser with your meaningless wit.
Blue banana? Meaningless?
As we recall, your past comments, you sure do not shy from violence.
Margot,
Great response to the lower elevator level IQ annony moron!
Anonymous, you are an idiot. So many great comments this morning and we have to have this juvenile moron add his violent rants while trying to make the right seem like they are the side committing political violence.
Listen you hockey puck, those “great comments” are all the same: kill Boasberg.
And as we recall, your past contributions (and your present comment only proves you are a violent nutjob) were calls and supportfor violence makes you a hypocrite.
I have never called for violence of any kind, but keep on lying you juvenile moron. Hey, go ask mommy for your acne cream, it’s time to go for your walk.
Never huh? Childish sarcasm is not violence?
I understand that at your advanced age you forget things.
How’s this: go change your diapers.
Contrary to what your elementary school teachers are telling you, words are not violence. Nor is violence speech.
HullBobby,
Ah, yes! It seems our annony moron, full of hate and rage, can only see violence where there is none. The vast majority of our comments are reasonable, sensible, logical and common sense. We occasionally toss in some sarc here and there, where appropriate which now the annony moron claims to be violence! HA! What a twit the annony moron is!
Ah, the lamenting conservative. MAGA is done for. You’ll all be in a concentration camp in after the next presidential election. Fire up the ovens dems!
Really dumb comment
That’s ripe, dust-off’s calling a comment dumb. The progenitor of the stoopid comment.
Lock the doors, run for the cellar dustof, they’re coming for you.
DustOff,
Ah, yes! Yet again, our leftists friends, roiling in their hate and rage, proves to us how they seek violence, murder of anyone who disagrees with them.
Come on Jonathan! Common sense tells us that this judge has used position to enact lawfare attack our president’s constitutional authority and duties. He has worked behind the scenes with an unconstitutional special prosecutor to go after enemies of the Democrats and to derail the campaign and presidency of Trump.
If a Judge oversteps his authority once or twice it may be excusable. However, Justice Boasberg has an egregious history of abusing his authority. The Supreme Court has had to put him in check.
If the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Roberts would assert his authority over the inferior courts we would not have the current Articles of impeachment. We would also not see the inferior courts continue to abuse of Constitutionally protected Parental Rights and Second Amendment infringements of Americans in Democrat controlled states.
Justices are not above the people they are required to serve. Nor should they be allowed to abuse their authority in clear defiance of Constitutional protections of Inalienable Rights and laws without Severe accountability.
Common sense tells us … not a legal argument. The Supreme Court has had to put him in check. Roberts is a political hack. MAGA is done for.
The “tit” has already been used and abused by Democrats, even impeaching President Trump twice (once while he was out of office). Democrats always rely on Republicans playing nice, or respecting decorum and tradition. Democrats never face the “tat” of their own precedents. And we’d do well to remember that President Obama also spied on Republican Senators, and faced no consequences for doing so.
While we can emphasize with Republican’s emotional response . . . At some point, adults MUST return to the room.
Adults?
That meme, adults in the room is passé. Politics has made everyone a brainless screaming child. Its over, its war now.
Did you gulp down a double shot of Democrat police state fascism with your first shot of booze today, Kenny? Theoretically, this blog’s focus of concern is the preservation of civil rights. Judge Boasberg has made sure that Republican civil rights don’t really exist in his court room – which leads to emotional relief for Democrats still sobbing that Trump is sitting in the Oval Office instead of a prison cell which Boasberg assisted the FBI in their attempt to do just that.
An incisive and witty comment? You failed.. This blogs focus is the preservation… no this is a joke. You want focus, read National Review, The Federalist. That’s real journalism, not the childishness nonsense Turley feeds you nitwits.
In other words the “adults” need to have their rights violated over and over and over again while the “children” of the left abuse them unconstitutionally.
If Republicans don’t treat Dems as they treat Republicans they will never stop abusing the legal process. Enough is enough. Impeach him.
So that’s your interpretation? Childish word twisting. Delusional to say the least.
Is it true your parents used you as a hockey puck when you were a baby?
It always seems Turley opposes everything.
If Boasberg walks like a political hack, talks like a political hack and easily acts like a political hack – – I think he’s a political hack. Definitely not a Judge who should be honored.
This is a fascinating discussion. Having lived a long time and seen the damage which can be done by incompetence and outright malfeasance, I am of the opinion that everyone should have to answer for their errors. For the record, I’m retired now but I practiced medicine for more than 40 years if you include medical school and I had one malpractice case. It was a horrible experience, 2 years, five different lawyers, suing my own malpractice insurer, etc., etc., etc., but it had to be done because the patient got a horrible result (albeit not because of any error on the part of the MDs involved but because of a lack of knowledge of an underlying disease which manifested itself in that horrible result after surgery and anesthesia). So I repeat. Everyone should have to answer for their errors, legal and apparently in this case ethical. Otherwise we have creatures such such as this judge casually flouting the law and nothing can be done to stop it. Should he be impeached? Based on the article, I will reluctantly side with Professor Turley and say no. But what this says to me is that something is desperately missing from the structure of our legal system. That is, there is either no proper way to deal with this judge built into our laws or if there is, and I admit my ignorance here, that mechanism is clearly completely malfunctioning. If I let my temper run, I’d say that tar and feathers is about right for Boasberg but I will not do so. Instead, I will ask why can nothing be properly done to this (my opinion) judicial equivalent of a ‘skunk’?
One medical event with sad and unfortunate UNSEEABLE results does not equate to a continued use of the courtroom to deny ONE SIDE their political and constitutional rights. This judge has had many, many Republican “deaths” in his operating room, many foreseeable (key word) events resulting from his actions repeat after repeat of his methods of operating.
Sorry doctor, I enjoyed your comment but the cases are not analogous.
Your analogies are 3rd rate. Get a Thesaurus instead.
Professor Turley is apparently giving imprimatur to judges to ignore the plain text of statutes. It is contrary to law to issue gag orders concerning the subpoena of the records of members of Congress.
Surely in a judge, being in effect a scofflaw does rise to at minimum impeachable misdemeanor level.
“contrary to law to issue gag orders …” But it none the less goes on and nothing will happen to curb it. To arms I say! To arms!
Clearly, the judge has participated in political persecution of lots of conservatives/Republicans, in office, and civilians! His behavior, taken as a whole, warrants his impeachment, and there are laws he’s definitely broken! This is about accountability, not revenge. Perhaps, his impeachment, will serve as an example to all the others, who are acting in partisan ways, acting way beyond their sphere of authority.
He won’t be impeached. Yesterday’s elections just confirmed that. The tide is turning. MAGA I hardly knew you….
Oh. My. God! Democrats won elections in heavily Democrat areas like New York City! What a stunning upset election!
Somebody go prime DEI Harris for another run for the presidency – Americans have proven they’re primed to bring back the Democrats for a repeat of the Biden presidency!
“Democrats won elections in heavily Democrat areas …”
Do you realize what you wrote. They won in places the Republicans desperately needed to make headway for MAGA And they failed. Its over for you clowns.
Republicans certainly don’t need to make any headway for MAGA in NYC, NJ, or VA. It would have been nice if we could, and we certainly tried, but the odds were heavily against it. Democrats winning in NYC is like Republicans winning in Wyoming; it’s expected and doesn’t mean anything.
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE about judges like Boasberg and hundreds of others, suddenly applying politics to legal decisions. How about something nonpolitical such as
(1) If a judge’s opinions are reversed x number of times in a two year span, they must take some refresher courses on the law. This would be a little humiliating, but it would caution the judge to remember the law in future.
(2) Restricting a judge’s involvement in political groups of any type. (We will have this soon on Congressional investing.)
(3) Limiting a judge to speaking engagements only on nonpolitical topics.
The courts must police themselves or impeachments will happen.
“SOMETHING MUST BE DONE about judges like Boasberg …” In capital letters no less. Wonder what that means? See folks, reps. are blood thirsty psychos. And they say liberals are the sickos?
Um, what is the topic of this post that we’re discussing? Do you remember? Why don’t you look at the title on the top of the page?
Yes, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE about Boasberg.
I’m curious. If these acts arent impeachable then what? You say they are wrong but when things like this happen and nothing is done, it will continue. As far as tit for tat with democrats, I’m sure you know that if Boasberg were a conservative and it were Obama, the articles would have already been written