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.
4 comments:
The degree to which any federal judge can affect national level issues should probably be debated. However it’s an issue that both sides of the political spectrum have done. It’s not just bad when one side does it.
Judge shopping to get the result they want is a major issue. Especially in some smaller areas folks can figure out who will get a case, and shop around accordingly.
Maybe the answer is that higher level issues are automatically reviewed at the next level?
Impeachment wouldn’t be appropriate. There are a pretty narrow set of circumstances where a federal judge can be impeached and a ruling the president dislikes isn’t on that list. Chief Justice Robert’s made that exact point very publicly.
From what I've read, Chief Justice Roberts has made more than one trip to Epstein's island. So...to state it politely his integrity and his morals have been compromised.
Our court system was lost long before, but it became *publicly* lost the day it became necessary to identify who appointed judges whenever referring to those judges. Any pretense that those judges were impartial went down the drain right then and there.
Fine, if you don't want to impeach him. BREAK OUT THE TAR AND FEATHERS!!!!
That or put his head on the courts doorstep.
Post a Comment