CJ John Roberts seems very reluctant to slap down or even criticize these lower courts and these petty self-appointed tyrants.
Posted on 03/18/2025 2:13:14 PM PDT by Rummyfan
Come on, man. I mean, John Roberts is correct in this instance, but ... still.
This started with Donald Trump making his displeasure known about activist judges in federal district courts interfering with executive authority. Judge James Boasberg had attempted to stop the deportation of Tren de Aragua-affiliated criminal illegal aliens, which had already taken place. Boasberg held a hearing yesterday demanding answers from the government as to why his order was allegedly ignored, and apparently didn't like the answers.
The Department of Justice didn't like his approach either, and filed a motion to have Boasberg removed from the case:
The feds asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals Monday to remove Chief DC US District Judge James Boasberg from hearing a lawsuit involving the deportation of illegal immigrants who are reputed Venezuelan gang members after Boasberg set a Monday afternoon hearing to make the DOJ answer for allegedly flouting his order from the weekend. ...
Since the case is about “flights that removed aliens identified as associated with a designated foreign terrorist organization” — any questions about what happened involves questions of national security and foreign relations and can’t be handled “in a rushed posture,” the letter says.
The appellate court didn’t answer the letter before the 5 p.m. hearing took place, with DOJ lawyers claiming they didn’t think they needed to follow Boasberg’s oral order to turn the flights around because it wasn’t included in his written order that came out after Saturday’s hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
CJ John Roberts seems very reluctant to slap down or even criticize these lower courts and these petty self-appointed tyrants.
On a cold day in Hades.
All of our problems with the judiciary right now stem from a refusal of judges to understand their actual roles in government. James Boasberg is not the president, and John Roberts is not a member of Congress.
The sooner they are made to understand this, the better it will be—both for them and the country.
He can’t stop the clerks because they aren’t releasing them.
He is. I’m convinced.
Roberts not correct though. He is as bad as any activist Democrat judge, especially when it involves Trump only in his mind, even though even in this case it does not involve Trump exclusively. it involves the power of all elected presidents in their responsibility to protect the nation.
The Supreme Court has absolutely no role in this. Zero. Zilch. Nada. He’s sticking his nose into somewhere it does not belong.
The treasonous maggot can kiss my red, white and blue arse.
Are you sure Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia would feel differently?
There have been countless thousands of bad decisions by federal judges throughout the history of the nation but only 15 impeachments. Since most FReepers seem to think this decision is sufficiently bad to warrant impeachment, I’ll just list them all to make it easy to compare and contrast:
John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, March 12, 1804.
Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, March 1, 1805.
James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, January 31, 1831.
West H. Humphreys, U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.
Mark W. Delahay, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1873, on charges of intoxication on the bench; Resigned from office, December 12, 1873, before opening of trial in the U.S. Senate.
Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, February 27, 1905.
Robert W. Archbald, Commerce Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.
George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; Resigned from office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.
Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, May 24, 1933.
Halsted L. Ritter, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 2, 1936, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, April 17, 1936.
Harry E. Claiborne, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 22, 1986, on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 9, 1986.
Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.
Walter L. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, November 3, 1989.
Samuel B. Kent, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, June 19, 2009, on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements; Resigned from office, June 30, 2009. On July 20, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to a resolution not to pursue further the articles of impeachment, and on July 22, 2009, the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, dismissed the articles.
G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 11, 2010, on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, December 8, 2010.
As Roberts said, the remedy is to appeal thru the court system all the way to Scotus if necessary. That’s the process.
impeach Roberts. it’s way overdue.
I would disagree. Your reasoning leads to an endless procession of appeals that hamstring a president from doing anything. Far better for the President to take the “ they have made their ruling, let them enforce it” option.
Well done!
Roberts is derelict here in the worst of ways. He's on the edge of being a useful idiot for the destruction of the judicial system he once claimed to love.
That’s not how the process works. ONE appeal, which either results in a favorable ruling or a final appeal to SCOTUS. The outcome of that WILL be the end of it, win or lose.
Once a decision that upholds the Executive’s ability to do his job per the Constitution, that will be legal precedent that will end all other cases based on the same theory. Just like the SCOTUS ruling that upheld Trump’s immunity when acting in his official capacity as President ended all lawsuits against him on that basis.
Then kick those appellate courts in the ass to expedite the appeals of those political hack judges.
“Rely on the appeals process”
That doesn’t work when the process is the punishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.