I haven't been paying attention to the judiciary lately. I'm retired and other folks are tasked with that function. I'm no lawyer, but I can read English, and from my limited understanding, the Supreme Court is responsible for the supervision of the lesser federal courts. To my way of thinking, that puts John Roberts squarely in the supervisors role. It seems that he has abdicated that role.
It seems that a number of unelected, lifetime, local district judges think that they can tell an elected President what to do. Some folks are agreeing.
We’ve had a federal judge order President Trump to rehire 30,000 federal employees he laid off. We’ve had more than one order him to spend money which violated an executive order he’d given.
And over the weekend, one of the silliest and most corrupt judges in America, James Boasberg of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., actually ordered the Trump administration to turn planes around that were in the process of deporting Tren de Aragua gang members to a prison in El Salvador.
I agree and understand that the federal judiciary has a role in upholding the rule of law. We are a nation of laws. But, courts have jurisdictions and federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. I fail to see how a lower court judge thinks that he can tell an elected, sitting President how to do his job.
After this latest kerfuffle, President Trump posted, in a moment of peeve, that this judge should be impeached. Chief Justice Roberts is quoted as saying that impeaching a federal judge is "inappropriate".
Perhaps impeaching a federal judge is inappropriate, but it is also Constitutional. It's written right there in the document. What might be appropriate is for Chief Justice Roberts to exercise his supervisory role and instruct his lower courts on something called judicial restraint. If John Roberts is concerned about the reputation of the Courts, perhaps he should start by reining in local judges who want to assume the role of President.