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.
What is the solution for holding a judge accountable for egregious decisions? It took years to discover this. The damage had already been experienced. The same with his failure to do anything about the FISA violations. If he were a police officer who was so incompetent and/or biased in exercising judgements on the street, he would be gone. Judges should just be allowed to get away with it?
Something in this debate doesn’t sit right with me. The Constitution created co-equal branches, not an untouchable judiciary. Congress writes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judiciary interprets them — but none stands above the others.
Some may point to the phrase “supreme law of the land,” but that refers to the Constitution itself, not the courts. The judiciary’s authority is supreme only within the judicial system — over lower courts, not over the other branches.
If Congress has no authority to impeach judges for abuse of power from the bench, then “co-equal” becomes a myth. The impeachment power is Congress’s constitutional check, and it was never meant to apply only to private misconduct. If a judge uses the robe to shield partisanship or weaponize justice, that’s still conduct — and co-equal means accountable.
Olly,
The judiciary has the same sort of protection other branches have. It’s the same reason why the president is immune to prosecution for a majority of things.
If judges could be threatened with impeachment every time a party was dissatisfied with their ruling there would be no sense of independence or separation of powers. Trump has already threatened judges with impeachment and harassed them with online taunts and rants because he wants to intimidate or coerce a judge into doing something he wants or put pressure on the judge by casting them as biased or “activist”.
Congress has authority to impeach judges, BUT as Turley noted an impeachment is meant to be hard to do and meet a strict set of conditions to apply. That is by design. It means to curb petty and vindictive actions like those of Republican lawmakers or the president who do not like how the judge is ruling. That is why we have appeals and higher courts. We can be mad at the judge’s decisions and disagree. What those on the right want is retribution and punishment, not appeals and overrulings because it does not satisfy the need to punish in the harshest possible way.
It’s just like Turley’s calls to expel students for flipping a table or trashing a display. Those actions have consequences of course, but Turley and those on the right want the most extreme and harshest punishment for even the mildest of infractions. If such actions only merited a three-day suspension or certain privileges revoked those on the right would be losing their minds because they see mild or appropriate punishments as a slap on the face because they expect and demand the harshest possible punishment. Because they WANT to satisfy their need to mete out the ultimate punishment and use it as an example to others so they won’t do the same. It’s that need to punish to the extreme that leads them to believe anything less is seen as enabling the behavior they believe deserves the most extreme punishment.
Judicial independence isn’t judicial immunity. The House can impeach for any reason it deems proper — that threat already exists, by design. It’s not “could be,” it’s shall be when misconduct warrants it.
And there’s a check on that power: the Senate trial. If the case is weak, it dies there. So the alarmism is misplaced — if impeachment is truly unjustified, it won’t survive the process. But to deny even the inquiry is to place judges above accountability, which the Framers never intended.
So what is the misconduct? Millhouse says some sort of misconduct occurred but he won’t specify exactly what?
Stop whining. Millhouse doesn’t owe you an answer — that’s what an impeachment inquiry is for. If you truly believe no impeachable actions exist, then you shouldn’t be so worried about Congress looking into it. The innocent don’t fear oversight; only the untouchable do.
Olly,
Whining? I’m asking what is the misconduct you and Milhouse keep referring to? You keep saying impeachable actions and/or some sort of misconduct keep referring to.
It seems to be the same mentality that you “feel” judge Boasberg did was impeachable, illegal, or unethical, but can’t say what exactly but it’s certainly wrong because it seems so.
This is why Professor Turley is saying calls for impeachment are not only wrong, but uncalled for because there is no evidence for it.
Boasberg’s record in Arctic Frost and Crossfire Hurricane isn’t a “feeling” — it’s documented. He signed off on FISA warrants later proven to rely on false or unverified information. That’s not speculation; that’s the misconduct in question.
No one’s saying he’s guilty — we’re saying Congress has a duty to ask why those abuses happened on his watch. That’s what an impeachment inquiry is for. If he’s clean, the facts will show it. But pretending there’s nothing to examine is the real denial of justice.
Olly,
“ He signed off on FISA warrants later proven to rely on false or unverified information. That’s not speculation; that’s the misconduct in question.”
That is not misconduct. He signed off on FISA warrants based on information he was given at the time of signing. That was later proven false or based on unverified information is not misconduct. He had no way of knowing the information was incorrect. He did exactly what the law requires. You can’t judge an action that was perfectly within the law at the time it was done and claim it was misconduct when information LATER showed the information was incorrect. That’s not the judge’s fault or his job to correct it.
“ No one’s saying he’s guilty — we’re saying Congress has a duty to ask why those abuses happened on his watch.”
Everyone here is saying he’s guilty of something, even criminal conduct. By people who have little understanding of how the law works. They demand punishment for things they think he did wrong. Not evidence.
An impeachment inquiry without clear evidence of a need for one is just a fishing expedition to find wrongs people think he committed. Turley has made this point many times. It’s putting the cart before the horse mentality.
I see you misspelled my username earlier, which is why I didn’t catch it.
The misconduct is conspiring with the 0bama and then Biden administrations, as well as with Democrat moles in the DOJ during Trump’s first term, to undo Trump and Republicans by hook or by crook. It’s clear that this was never about his good-faith understanding of the law; he was deliberately using his power for political advantage.
Signing off on the fake FISA warrant on Carter Page, and then slapping the perjurer on the wrist when he was caught, was bad enough. It showed that he didn’t mind the perjury, and was probably even aware of it.
This latest revelation is the smoking gun. It’s not because Smith’s appointment was invalid. He was entitled to regard it as valid. But he conspired with Smith to achieve this thoroughly illegal fishing expedition, in the full knowledge that it was illegal and an attack on our entire political system. It was at least as bad as Watergate.
Milhouse,
“ The misconduct is conspiring with the Obama and then Biden administrations, as well as with Democrat moles in the DOJ during Trump’s first term, to undo Trump and Republicans by hook or by crook.”
Conspiring? How? What is the proof that he conspired with both administrations? Moles? Most of your argument is conclusory, not evidentiary and that does not pass as proof of misconduct.
Signing off on a FISA warrant based on information he had at the time he signed it is not misconduct. Finding out information was either incorrect or false LATER is not misconduct of Judge Boesberg’s actions.
Smith’s appointment was not invalid at the time the warrants were filed. Judge Cannon’s ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment was invalid has no relevance.
“ But he conspired with Smith to achieve this thoroughly illegal fishing expedition, in the full knowledge that it was illegal and an attack on our entire political system. It was at least as bad as Watergate.”
Again it’s a conclusory statement without evidence. You don’t know it was illegal or that there was a conspiracy. Nothing Boasberg did or Smith did is a crime. To claim there was a conspiracy they would need evidence and nobody has provided any. The only “evidence” is conclusory statements and speculation based on what people think was a crime.
You keep saying the evidence of misconduct is signing FISA warrants that were perfectly within the law at the time they were signed but LATER some information was found to be incorrect or erroneous. That is not a crime or evidence of illegal actions. It’s nowhere close to misconduct.
The FISA warrants were based on outright perjury, which this judge completely excused and allowed to happen, and even when one guy was caught he gave him a slap on the wrist. That proves he didn’t care.
I don’t need formal proof to claim he was in on it up to his eyebrows. That is common sense. And it’s certainly enough to justify the House starting an impeachment inquiry. They will find the evidence.
“to deny even the inquiry is to place judges above accountability, which the Framers never intended.”
What the framers intended re removal of Federal judges seems to be an open question. Article III, Section 1 says that judges shall serve “during good behavior”. If that was intended to be identical to the standards discussed for impeachment of Federal officers in Articles I and II, assuming that the Articles and Sections were debated in something approaching chronological order, don’t you think it’s a bit strange that impeachment is not also mentioned in Article III, if that was the intended requirement for removal of Federal judges? Caveat: I have not been able to find any historical account of the sequence of debate on the parts of the Constitution; the framers were sworn at the time not to divulge any details of what went on there. I am currently reading Chernow’s biography of A. Hamilton, and while it asserts opinion about details of the Convention (and other parts of the process) that are not widely known, I have yet to see any specific chronology.
Great point — “good behavior” in Article III is indeed the constitutional standard for judicial tenure, but the Framers intentionally left enforcement of that clause to the impeachment mechanism outlined in Articles I and II. The omission in Article III isn’t an oversight — it reflects the structural logic of checks and balances.
Hamilton addressed this in Federalist No. 79: judges “hold their offices during good behavior,” but “the only provision on the point of removal is the impeachment.” In other words, the House and Senate were designed to police what “good behavior” means in practice. That’s precisely why denying even an inquiry undermines the Framers’ intent — it leaves the standard without an enforcer.
Independence from politics does not mean independence from accountability. He demands that final charges are needed which is his dishonest way of saying ‘Don’t look. There is nothing to see’. He is also unprincipled because the reasons for such an inquiry have been presented on this blog many times. This is a false tactic he uses almost always and that is a reason he should be considered dishonest instead of an honest poster.
We are talking of impeachment but first they will gather the facts and investigate in depth.
This is a pattern of behavior with Judge Boasberg. While I agree that impeachment has been misused in recent years, what is the remedy to deal with a judge who consistently uses the bench to target political opponents? He gets a free pass to continue his obviously partisan rulings?
The problem is that these lef types are fully prepared to nuke their careeer, their whole life, for their misguided ‘fight’.
How many media figures, politicians, activists, have lost their reputation, jobs recently because they are unhinged?
The list is looong! They don’t care about opinions except their most radical crazies.
Their malfeasance is celebrated on the left, dirty tricks are fine, lies, injustice, murder? ok by them, always has been.
SCOTUS needs to be more on top of it instead of waiting for the harm to set in.
I mean, for example, if Trump can’t tariff, it would have been nice to tell him before he did it!
SCOTUS can’t do that. Courts absolutely cannot ever give advisory opinions. Acting without a case or controversy being brought to them, by a party with standing, is the big no-no for any judge. It’s the only thing that keeps the judiciary from becoming a dictatorship, as it has done in Israel.
Trump didn’t need to be told that Congress hasn’t authorized him to impose tariffs. He knew that he has no such power without Congress’s approval, so it was up to him to find a statute that explicitly gave him such authority. He couldn’t find such a statute, so instead he dug up a statute that doesn’t say that, but insists that somewhere in that mousehole there’s an elephant hiding, and “regulate” can include imposing taxes. His legal advisers ought to have known that that was nonsense, and should have checked whether this statute or its predecessor had ever once been interpreted that way before.
And it turns out the answer is no. Not only has the IEEPA never been interpreted that way, but contrary to claims you will find, Nixon did not rely on the TWEA to justify his illegal tariffs. That was a rabbit his lawyers pulled out of the hat only two years later, when their other justifications had collapsed. And the court accepted it very reluctantly, only because by that time the tariffs had expired anyway, and the only issue was whether the USA would have to repay billions of dollars that had been taken unlawfully. To rescue the treasury from having to make such a huge payout the appeals court said, “OK, we’re not buying it but we’ll let it slide this time, just don’t ever do it again”. Well, Trump did it again. And his tariffs are still in effect, so unlike in Nixon’s case the question is far from moot.
A few days ago Professor Turley, famous 1st Amendment defender, and the rest of America learned that Judge Boasberg conspired with his close friend Attorney General Merrick Garland and Garland’s Special Counsel Jack Smith to issue search warrants for “Arctic Frost”, stripping 1st and 4th Amendment rights from at least 430 Republican elected politicians, former attorney generals, journalists, and people who were no more than employees of those people.
Applying gag orders, least Republican politicians like Senator Cruz and other Senate leaders et al destroy evidence before Jack Smith could properly investigate them! (Boasberg was concerned Cruz and others might have colluded with Trump like the Russians colluded with Trump four years earlier when Boasberg issued his illegitimate secret FISA spy warrants!)
Professor Turley is well aware of the previous actions of Jack Smith as the political assassin deployed by Obama in 2012 to protect his re-election, and that SCOTUS had unanimously tossed out Smith’s conviction of Governor McDonald obtained on the basis of Smith prosecuting under new versions of law he made up of whole cloth. He is well aware that SCOTUS went so far as to name Smith a threat to the Separation Of Powers.
Professor Turley is well aware that Judge Boasberg four years earlier in 2016/2017 as Chief Justice of the FISA courts had allowed Obama’s Attorney Generals and FBI Directors to repeatedly perjure themselves before his FISA courts. He knows Judge Boasberg then rewarded their criminal perjury by giving them those illegitimate FISA spy warrants they used to strip thousands of Americans of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights. And that Boasberg didn’t summon even one of Obama’s felons back to his court for their repeated felonies to be sentenced for at least Contempt Of Court – in his personal court.
Whatever Professor Turley thought of this – even if he believed his friend Merrick Garland, Boasberg, Comey, Mueller, McCabe, Lynch, Wray et al were all narrowly within the law with this perjury and the type and kind of warrants he gave them – Professor Turley spent days deciding to write instead about trivialities and old news, rather than this issue laid open before the American public.
Crickets from Professor Turley… just crickets chirping.
BUT NOW… Judge Boasberg’s conduct to strip Americans of 1st Amendment rights has resulted in articles of impeachment!!!! This is different – something must be written about this!!! And here we have it this morning – his attack on articles of impeachment!!!!
Professor Turley rushed so fast to condemn the impeachment (NOT Judge Boasberg’s eight year history of stripping Americans of their precious 1st Amendment rights) that it’s a wonder he didn’t break his neck falling as he rushed from his elitist academic First Amendment ivory tower. And he gets paid to defend his Washington DC Democrat lawyer brotherhood!!!! (Not to mention George X loves him today, for the first time since George appeared here)
The deep and abiding loyalty and protective brotherhood between Professor Turley and his fellow Democrat lawyers and members of the Washington DC Bar Association that are Judge Boasberg and his fellow conspirators is such an impressive thing to see operating in real time.
Is there any remaining curiosity about why lawyers in general and these Democrat courts in particular are held in such contempt and mistrust by such a great percentage of the American public?
Perhaps the long-winding conspiracy theories that many clung to are not aligning with reality and Professor Turley’s sort of subtle attempt at disagreeing with the idea of impeachment doesn’t meet the requirements to impeach.
This is about the right’s need to punish and mete out the harshest possible punishment for perceived violations of law from those who don’t understand how the law works. Turley is trying to tell his readers that to impeach a judge it takes a lot more than just feeling that the judge did something illegal. There must be concrete proof and the Professor is saying there is no evidence to justify an impeachment. Feelings and speculation about the Judge’s conduct and motives are not evidence, but that seems to be the right’s belief. Because they “think” he did something illegal, they just can’t pinpoint exactly what, but it merits impeachment anyway.
X, your analysis is completely correct.
When you say that MAGA “THINKS” he did something illegal, but they just can’t pinpoint exactly what, you have actually summarized the entire MAGA movement in a nutshell.
The MAGA movement in general is one of perceived victimization and grievance, but they are not really sure who has victimized them or how.
They are basically a bunch of losers who lead pathetic lives. They believe they are in this predicament because they have been somehow “victimized”, and they are thrashing around trying to find someone or something to blame for this perceived victimization.
The problem is that they are not really sure who to blame.
This is where Trump and the GOP stepped in to take advantage of these pathetic losers by giving them a sense that they have been victimized by minorities, immigrants, DEI, the educational system and who knows what else.
They have simply been conned in believing this victimization by a carnival barker and his sycophantic GOP minions.
The real problem is that the GOP now has the MAGA tiger by the tail, and they know perfectly well that if they let go, they are absolutely doomed to oblivion.
This will not end well for them.
X… don’t get too carried away or you’ll out what we’re attempting to accomplish here!
X says: “Perhaps the long-winding conspiracy theories that many clung to”
Can you give us a short rendition of of your wonderful No Kings dog whistle, Mad King George?
“… this is not an appropriate use of impeachment and could seriously undermine our constitutional system.” “Such a pattern would undermine the independence and integrity of our court system.” Undermine and Integrity? You keep using those words. I don’t think it means what you think it means regarding the corruption being uncovered lately, Professor.
How could it beundermined more than what has already been achieved? Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead!
“I have previously written that it would be a grave mistake to misuse impeachment powers to target judges or justices. …” -JT
Disagree, They (Some of the Judges, not all Judges mind you) are counting on just that. That the repercussions of their Rulings will go unchallenged. Unchallenged including all the way to the SCOTUS. The misuse powers of the Bench are equally employed, as we have seen used with Political Bias.
The Judicial Branch; is-not, was-not, nor shall-be a political Star Chamber in the schema of Constitutional Balance. Impeachment Powers of the Congress are an importantly essential Check in that Balance.
(IMO: Use’Em if you got Em – Balance: Ambition vs Ambition – Chief Judge Boasberg has a bit of ‘Ambition’ under that Robe)
Ref.: The Star Chamber
The Star Chamber was an English court of law, established in 1487 and abolished in 1641, that was known for its arbitrary and secretive proceedings. It was named for the star-patterned ceiling of the room where it met in the Palace of Westminster. While initially created to try powerful individuals and supplement other courts, it later became a tool for the monarchy to suppress opposition, which led to its abolition after abuses of power like the use of torture and punishing jurors. Today, the term “star chamber” can describe any unfair, secretive, or arbitrary judicial or administrative proceeding.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/star_chamber_proceedings
If this phone was an official phone, then this was most probably in violation of 2 U.S.C. 6628.
With regard to yesterday’s election results, my expert political opinion is that killing the job market, raising grocery prices, kicking people off their health care, stealing taxpayer money, trying to starve 40 million Americans, and sending masked goons to randomly grab people off the streets, are not really all that popular.
But hey, what do I know, right ????
There are some real vote getters there.
When formal public executions become a thing, MAGA will be ecstatic.
Meanwhile at Mar-a-Largo …………….
https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:ozqrx23gapfo5rzxe5cgmbeo/bafkreiaghg7urjxvr36765gjdq2lot445noirpnug652vku3dv73q623k4@jpeg
Got anything on the disappearance of the ChiCom and Putin ice cream stands outside Biden’s mansions?
No sentencing to live in NY would be worst
“When formal public executions become a thing, MAGA will be ecstatic.”
When you Democrat Antifa and Black Liars & Marxists collectively get a few inches of spine and a tiny set of balls, then get dressed up in your black man-jammies and masks to try your luck outside of your Democrat safe spaces, it won’t be formal public executions when your intended victims reduce you to room temperature with the 5.56 solution.
Let us know when you’re finally equipped with a bit of spine and a borrowed pair of gonads and are ready to take appointments to show up and make house calls.
Obviously not much Comrade
You know nothing. If you did, you would know ADP today announced the private sector companies added 42,000 jobs in Oct. That is above estimates. The price of eggs is down. Schumer is holding SNAP/EBT hostage for not opening the government by not passing the clean CR. ICE is not randomly grabbing people off streets. They are arresting illegal criminals.
Turley– “One can disagree — and even denounce — Chief Judge Boasberg for prior orders without resorting to this constitutional nuclear option.”
Perhaps if Justice Roberts ran a tighter ship we wouldn’t have what appears to be a judicial mutiny requiring the intervention of Congress.
Whatever the standards for impeachment, it is inarguable that the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court may be limited, or eliminated, by Congress at will.
If Roberts isn’t up to the task, perhaps it is time for Congress to tighten control. The judiciary is a rotting institution rapidly losing the confidence of the nation.
By the way, how is it that nearly every case touching on Trump or his administration is “randomly’ assigned to a radical Obama/Biden judge?
Agreed. I can see and hear Boasberg’s response now, “Oooooh, I’ve been denounced AND get to keep judgin’. HAR-HAR, HARDY-HAR-HAR!!”
Turley is an establishment guy and will ultimately protect the establishment.
Turley, like Boasberg, like Beryl Howell, like his friend Merrick Garland, like Wray, like Comey, like Mueller, like McCabe. is also a fellow Democrat Washington DC lawyer and all are rubbing shoulders and tipping a glass together as lawyers getting their professional status from the Washington DC Bar Association.
It isn’t about the establishment, it’s about felons of the same feather flying together.
And screw all that shyte about defending Americans 1st Amendment free speech rights when judges like Boasberg repeatedly strip Americans of those rights.
Anonymous,
Unlike you, Turley actually puts his name to his opinions.
They are often brilliant and always honest.
Ultimately his goal is to protect the truth as well as he, or anyone, is able to see the truth.
I disagree occasionally, but, unlike you, I do it with my moniker and I will sometimes change my opinion and own my mistakes.
“They are often brilliant and always honest.”
Like today’s – the closest he has gotten to writing an opinion on the campaigns his friend Merrick Garland and others carried out to deprive Republicans of their 1st Amendment civil rights?
Well, the attempted defense you’ve made of Professor Turley continually giving a pass to the criminality and malfeasance of Judge Boasberg and others is more honest than Professor Turley’s ongoing defense of these police state thugs.
As far as Zohran “The Mouth” Mamdani’s mayorial win, what fun! Could not think of a more deserving bunch of people to have to put up with him. As Karl Denniger pointed out,
“Note that Mamdani, in that position, cannot raise taxes in virtually any area so many of his claimed policy prescriptions have no funding source available without the direct consent and enactment by the NY Legislature. Its rather unclear exactly what sort of support he’ll find there for increasing taxes and costs on wealthy people, without which he can’t do any of the “free” stuff he’s talking about since a city, like a state, cannot run a budget deficit.
In other words he has to raise the funds before he can spend them, and the only way to raise them as a mayor would be to impose fees and costs on various services and such under his control — which is quite a limited list.
Its not zero, however — there are several places he can impose costs on people, including parking tickets, tax stamps on deed and mortgage transactions, various business permit fees (e.g. licenses), construction permit and similar, code violations, food service permits (e.g. restaurants and bars) and such. Some of these require City Council approval — but many do not.
But none of these can really be “focused” on wealthy people and most of them would have nearly no effect unless raised so high as to effectively destroy anyone of modest means. The “big kahunas” which can increased in a form and fashion that discriminate against wealthy people, such as income and property taxes are not under his control.
Thus we have a politician who is writing checks that he lacks the policy levers to cash, especially when it comes to things that cost real money. You can certainly fund some transportation by wildly jacking up parking ticket fines, for example, but doing so screws the common worker who gets one arguably to a greater degree than it does the wealthy dude who really doesn’t care that you just socked him for $200. For the average wage-earner, however, that might be enough for them to miss the rent.
This certainly ought to be interesting, particularly if he wins (and the polls suggest this is highly likely) and then he can’t actually deliver any of it, and worse, those who have money either shrug or leave in anticipation of him attempting to gain an office where he can do many of these things — such as the NY Governor’s seat.
I chuckled when he first announced his platform because the power simply didn’t exist in the office he endeavors to occupy to actually fund any of his promises. But that certainly has gone over the head of most people, it would appear, in Gotham.”
There are two articles there on this, here is the latest:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=254355
with this excerpt:
As for both Virginia and New Jersey, those were also “tainted” races but that’s much less-relevant and does make clear that in another year there’s big trouble coming for Trump’s Administration when it comes to Congress. While the Congressional session is young anything he expects done better get done like oh, right now, and I fully expect yet more impeachment trap games in another year. More to the point fiscal rectitude is not on the menu anywhere so I hope you like inflation (and lots of it) and all the very bad outcomes that can be had with it, and no, asset prices will not continue to soar in that environment. That ship has sailed and run aground; if you haven’t noticed people are starting to notice this wee problem with assets and its called “earnings” (or rather the lack thereof and reasonable return on investment.) Indeed a paper recently out of IBM made clear that so-called AI has a negative return which I was rather surprised to see them admit, but admit it they did. I don’t know if that’s set off the selloff the other day but perhaps reading remains fundamental and what I’ve pointed out for a while finally got in front of a few eyeballs.
Go figure.
“Are you not entertained?”
I mean, there’s literally nothing like a city where someone arrested a dozen or more times, many of them for felonies, is still on the streets.
What could possibly go wrong with more compassion in such a circumstance?”
Floyd,
Maybe we should wait and see how he does as Mayor before making all kinds of wild predictions. What would make him truly scary for those on the right would be if some of his ideas become succesful or show results. That is far scarier than a “communist” as mayor for those on the right.
X says: Maybe we should wait and see how he does as Mayor before making all kinds of wild predictions.
George, would you like to remember your wild predictions that it was unconstitutional for President Trump to take control of and deploy the National Guard – which last week SCOTUS confirmed he can do?
How about just over a year ago when your wild prediction was that Trump would end up in a prison cell, rather than in the White House?
George, you are the avatar of wild predictions, served up in the form of foundational Democrat Marxist lyin’ and denyin’. No mentally competent adult could know what those words mean when wild predictions are part and parcel of their daily Democrat Marxist Political Theater here.
I have little choice but to wait, but I suspect that a Socialist Utopia is not sitting there, just below the horizon, waiting to arise. This socialist crap seldom works out the way intended, and it usually ends up in financial dysfunction, bullets, or baseball bats in a killing field. Or maybe all three.
Zohran “The Mouth” Mamdani, is simply another Obama, or maybe a Bernie Sanders. Someone who gives a nice stirring speech, but can’t actually get it up and achieve penetration, you know the real nitty-gritty.
Add compassion for thugz to that mix, and the result should be popcorn worthy.
“Maybe we should wait and see how he does as Mayor before making all kinds of wild predictions.”
He told us what he wants to do. I believe him. I should not wait to tell him what will happen after the fact. That would be stupid.
Its over MAGA yesterday was the day. They got your children, they will come for you and guns ain’t gonna help you. You’re cooked. Power to the people!
No, MAGA is not dead, any more than Woke is dead. They will both still be there for a long time, because mass executions are kinda off the table in this country, as is exile to the Gulag. Thus, our country will continue to be crippled, and subject to much future pain and suffering. Eventually, we get our very own Hitler, who will have to clean up the mess.
Floyd,
America first idea has been around since July 4 1776. Trump just packaged it into a niffty slogan. It will continue on long after we are dead and gone.
“Its over MAGA yesterday was the day.”
By that “reasoning,” do R wins in red states portend the end of D’s?
With all due respect, Professor Turley, you need to pull your head out of your rear end! Here, read your own words:
“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.”
Boasberg allowed spying on 1/10th of the whole damn Senate, the opposite party, and you don’t think the partisan clown needs to go??? C’mon, that is exactly the kind of thing a judge should get tossed for.
Not to mention Boasberg’s other acts.
What you propose is about the same as the cashless bail system, or the restorative justice thing, just on a higher level. Which is, let’s just continue to tolerate the bad behavior.
Squeal all you want, nothing will change. MAGA died yesterday.
“Smith also sent gag orders to Verizon and AT&T . . .”
JT, you’re ignoring two elephants in the room.
That gag order was signed by Boasberg. The argument is that there was no predicate for that gag order.
The witch hunt (er, “investigation”) began right after Trump announced his candidacy for president. Lacking a predicate for the gag order, the argument is that Boasberg was motivated by politics to aid Smith, to kneecap the opposition, and to “get Trump.”
The critical question here is: When a judge politicizes the bench to destroy the political opposition, does that qualify as sufficient grounds for a charge of “high crimes and misdemeanors?” (Whether Boasberg did that is a question of fact to be determined during a trial.)
Responding to Sam:
Remember when AG Ashcroft was severely reprimanded by a panel of federal judges for abusing the federal “Material Witness Statute”?
To refresh your memory: Ashcroft’s goons went to the employers of regular Americans (like anyone reading this). Ashcroft forced the employer to fire the blacklisted American then slapped a gag-order on the private employer.
In other words, if you got fired from your job, your boss couldn’t tell you the real reason why. You never knew the U.S. Department of Justice was tampering with your employment.
In many cases being fired from your job could lead to losing your house, losing your marriage, losing the dignity of a paycheck and may have even led to many suicides of totally innocent Americans – denied charges, denied judge or jury, denied trial and never confronted in any way.
Ashcroft’s unconstitutional intervention and then using gag-orders to gaslight his targets likely destroyed many innocent Americans denied all justice and denied all due process.
We now know many (maybe most) of Ashcroft’s “witnesses” were never a flight risk from appearing in court and in fact many (maybe most) were punished – odd way to treat witnesses. It was never about witnesses.
This Ashcroft precedent was well established before Jack Smith ever came along. The 21st Century has been largely constitutionally-lawless. Smith was following Republican precedent at DOJ.
Mr. Ashcroft:
Many (maybe most) of your blacklisting victims might forgive your ungodly behavior if you publicly apologize to us.
Stop bearing false-witness and simply apologize for you ungodly behavior. Many will forgive you, we have stronger faith than you did back then!
The historians will write the truth of what you did! Publicly apologize for violating your Oath of Office loyalty oath and violating your Christians values. It’s never too late!
To refresh your memory: Ashcroft’s goons went to the employers of regular Americans (like anyone reading this). Ashcroft forced the employer to fire the blacklisted American then slapped a gag-order on the private employer.
Refresh our memories then! Must have resulted in a SCOTUS – or at least Ninth Circus – decision.
You might want to refresh the memory of your friends at Wikipedia first. Because they make absolutely no mention of this horrible violation of civil rights and the court decisions stemming from it.
Typical Turley! Judges are gods. The Law is so sacred that its misuse is automatically forgiven. Justice is less of an issue than protecting the judiciary. Turley will attend the funeral of Justice, bow his head, shed an artificial tear, then forgive the miscreant judge who put Justice in its grave. I, for one, have had enough. It’s time to abandon the High Road to Oblivion and demand true Justice. If that means removing judges who have abused their powers, so be it. We have tried civility. We have been willing to operate within the system, with nobility and decency and dignity. Now we realize where that has gotten us. It’s not good. It’s not acceptable. It’s not in keeping with the will of the people. It’s time to tear the system apart if that’s required.
You know, Clarke, this blog — and years of civic study — have given me a pretty good sense of how the process is supposed to work. Call it instinct or just experience, but when I read Turley I can usually tell when he’s right or wrong. And here, I think he’s on the wrong side of it. Judges shouldn’t be immune from impeachment inquiry for abuses committed from the bench. It’s not just about private conduct — all conduct under color of office should be accountable.
Yes, Turley is on the wrong side of this.
👍
Agreed Olly. Jack Smith chose Judge Boasberg because he knew that he would approve his unconstitutional Arctic Frost subpoena requests. It wasn’t by accident. I understand making impeachment difficult, but how many acts of judicial misconduct does Judge Boasberg get before the House takes action ? Greg
MAGA is doomed.
Power to the people!
It was “the people” who elected Trump, going for MAGA. A lot more people than live in Virginia, New Jersey, and NYC combined.
“POWER TO THE RESTRICTED-VOTE REPUBLIC OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDERS”
______________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
______________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
________________________
You couldn’t.
The defacto founder of the Republican Party – Abraham Lincoln – warned America will only be destroyed by internal division between Americans. Lincoln said that no foreign nation would ever defeat the United States if we were united, we would only be defeated fighting amongst ourselves.
Maybe the #1 reform needed in 2025, is to require annual training that all government officials (including politicians) to remember their top loyalty is to the U.S. Constitution.
The top loyalty of the Congress is to the Constitution. Top duty of the FBI is to protect constitutional rights. The top duty of the CIA is to protect constitutional rights. The top duty of the military is to protect constitutional rights and follow the U.S. Constitution (a wartime governing charter). The top duty of your local police chief and sheriff, is to protect constitutional rights. The motto “Protect & Serve” is legally required to circumscribe the constitutional Oath of Office.
100% of governing officials (local, state, federal) voluntarily take a constitutional Oath of Office. They don’t pledge loyalty to the nation, they don’t pledge loyalty to the people, they don’t take a supreme oath to protect & serve. The supreme loyalty oath is to the U.S. Constitution. Both parties need this annual training and education.
When these 20th & 21st Century agencies were created, these agencies were legally required (at inception) to follow sections 1, 2 & 3 of Article VI of the Constitution (18th Century precedent). These agencies were required to follow (at inception) the 19th Century post-Civil War amendments.
This is not to disparage the noble authority of Police-chiefs, FBI Directors, CIA Directors, NSA Directors or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They could start reforms today by simply blaming the current unconstitutional model on Harry Truman. Truman was well-meaning but he designed a foreign style security system that destroys too many innocent people today. Reform this foreign system and follow the American model instead.
General Mark Milley’s retirement speech explaining the American Oath of Office is arguably the most accurate in over 50 years. Milley’s speech should be mandatory training for police-chiefs, FBI Directors, CIA Directors, NSA Directors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and its patent constitutionality reinforced by the 10th Amendment, which it is, every act of Lincoln subsequent to his illicit and unconstitutional high criminal act of denying secession to particular states is similarly invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional and must be rescinded and abrogated, including “the 19th Century post-Civil War amendments.”
Dobbs, as legal and justifiable corrective action, extirpated Roe v. Wade.
Professor Turley writes, “It [impeachment] should not be based on differences over statutory interpretations, even when a judge is later reversed… These measures can trigger tit-for-tat politics as each party harasses judges considered obstacles to their agendas.”
Professor, that’s true in so far as the judges in question are acting in good faith, but when they deliberately orchestrate judicial obstruction in defiance of both the President and the Constitution, that’s another matter.
Boasberg has crossed enough lines at this point to create that appearance. Hence, impeachment proceedings–while an exercise in futility–can still be illuminating.
The Democrats have declared war, Professor. They’re just too insidious to admit it.
Spot on Diogenes!! Professor Turley, your column does of fine job of showing the democrat in you. If boasberg ever should need another attorney to represent him in an impeachment hearing We The People are pretty sure he’ll call on you after reading this column.
“column does of fine job of showing the democrat “. If he’s a democrat, what are you doing here. You’re a rep, you hate dems.
Um, Prof Turley is a Democrat. This is hardly a secret! How is it that you did not know this?
Hear, hear!
Not only should Judge Boasberg be impeached, but he should be permanently disbarred and tried for treason. He needs to be in jail for all the laws he broke.
Not treason. He hasn’t made war on the United States, nor has he adhered to their enemies. Those are the only two forms of treason allowed by the constitution.
But Madman-y, Obongo, and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did.
No, they didn’t either.
Jeez…. is there any other word in the English language more misused, abused, misunderstood, crumpled and generally reduced to having no more value than garbage than the word “treason”?
It’s difficult to decide whether those who self-identify as Republicans abuse it more or less than those who do the same as Democrats.
Hear, hear!
Exactly right, Diogenes. Judicial independence assumes good faith — it was never meant to shield bad actors. When a judge’s decisions start to look less like interpretation and more like orchestration, Congress has not just the right but the duty to inquire.
Even if impeachment ends in futility, the process itself can still expose the truth. Transparency is the disinfectant our institutions need, especially when those entrusted with impartiality appear to be waging their own quiet war on it.
“Interpretation” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.
Interpretation includes modification and amendment, which judges have no power to accomplish; they must simply apply or remand law.
Recall the deleterious effect the false “interpretation” of not prohibited and fully constitutional secession (i.e. 10th Amendment) had on America.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] 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
What made Boasberg’s rulings show that they were made in bad faith?
Because all I’m seeing is critics of Boasberg THINK he made rulings in bad faith but nobody exlains what exactly it is that makes them bad faith rulings? Did he act in bad faith bacause he’s not a conservative? Is any judge who is not conservative automatically makes bad faith decisions? Based on what?
Ok well I disagree. He needs to be removed.