Posted on 04/03/2025 2:50:19 PM PDT by stars & stripes forever
On January 20, 2025, President Trump began his second term, having won the electoral vote and the popular vote, but in the next two months, his administration experienced an unprecedented 132 legal challenges by liberal judges.
Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer explained his strategy in a PBS interview, March 21, 2025:
“We did put 235 judges—progressive judges … last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time.”
Justin Evan Smith, writing for The Federalist, March 21, 2025:
“Judge Boasberg’s ruling is just the latest example of a judge substituting his own political preferences for executive decision-making … (It) is not judicial review, but judicial rule — a clear case of a court attempting to override a core executive power in the name of politics.”
Is this the way the U.S. Constitution was intended to work?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanminute.com ...
On October 15, 1991, during Senate confirmation hearings, Senator Thurmond asked Clarence Thomas about judicial activism, to which Thomas replied:
"The role of a judge is a limited one. It is to ... interpret the Constitution, where called upon, but at no point to impose his or her will or ... opinion in that process."
Don’t want them limited. Americans want their tyrannical keisters GONE!!!
Congress won’t do shit.
Nadler should Give Booker the Purple Shart. Gutfeld
First you need a Congress that isn’t activist.
Congress isnt gonna do shit until a few of them are hauled in for fraud questioning(at least). once they see their own getting their feet held to the fire, them sorry sobs will fall in line el’quicko!!
Aaaarrrggghhh! If only we had a Republican Congress!
Per (Up)Chuck Schumer, “We did put 235 judges—progressive judges … last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time.”
And, THAT, is clear evidence of the lefturds working to (successfully?) stack the judiciary.
Congress can, and should, reduce judicial appropriations by 25% in fy 2025. Its just that simple. If any Republican Representative doesn’t do that then primary them.
They are to busy wasting time on unconstitutional vote from home bills.
Article III Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.Constitutional scholars refer to this as the Compensation Clause, which they say prevents Congress from eliminating judicial districts because it violates the salary protection of judges in those offices targeted to be eliminated.
In deference to our FReeper friends who insist on plain text readings of the Constitution, I'm now going to rule that the plain text "Continuance in Office" refers to the judge, not the office. As long as a judge is sitting in his district, he is "in office" and cannot have his compensation reduced.
However, Article III says NOTHING about continuing the office itself. Article III does NOT say "which shall not be diminished during their Continuance OF THE Office," it says the judges' continuance IN THE office.
I'm saying that Congress should realign the districts, making them smaller, discontinue the existing offices, and require the President to nominate the judges to fill the newly formed district offices.
I presented this interpretation to Perplexity.ai. Here is the transcript of that chat.
Q: tell me about the compensation clause of Article III Section 1 of the United States Constitution
The Compensation Clause of Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution ensures judicial independence by mandating that federal judges receive a salary that cannot be diminished during their tenure. This provision is foundational to maintaining the judiciary's autonomy from the executive and legislative branches.
Key Features of the Compensation Clause:
This clause is critical for preserving the judiciary's impartiality and ensuring that judges can make decisions free from external pressures.
- Judicial Independence: The clause prevents Congress from reducing judges' salaries, ensuring that judges are not pressured or influenced by financial manipulation from other branches of government.
- Salary Increases Allowed: While salaries cannot be decreased, Congress retains the ability to increase judicial compensation to account for inflation or societal changes.
- Historical Context: The clause reflects the Framers' intent to protect judicial independence, inspired by grievances in the Declaration of Independence about colonial judges being financially dependent on the Crown.
- Supreme Court Interpretations:
- In United States v. Will (1980), the Court held that once a salary increase takes effect, it cannot be rescinded.
- The clause also applies to nondiscriminatory salary reductions affecting multiple government officials, as long as they are not targeted solely at judges.
- Taxation of Judges: Initially, federal judges were exempt from certain taxes under the clause (e.g., Evans v. Gore, 1920). However, this interpretation was later overturned in United States v. Hatter (2001), which upheld nondiscriminatory taxes like Medicare but struck down selective taxes targeting judges.
When Article III Section 1 says "during their Continuance in Office" it means during the judges' tenure in the office?
Yes, the phrase "during their Continuance in Office" in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the tenure of federal judges while they hold their judicial office. This provision ensures that judges receive a salary that cannot be reduced as long as they remain in office, thereby safeguarding judicial independence by preventing financial pressures from other branches of government.
Judges hold their positions under the "Good Behavior" clause, which effectively grants them lifetime tenure unless they are impeached and removed for misconduct such as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
The phrase "during their Continuance in Office" in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is about the judge, not the office itself?
Yes, the phrase "during their Continuance in Office" in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution refers specifically to the tenure of the individual judge rather than the office itself. It ensures that while a judge holds their position, their compensation cannot be reduced, thereby protecting their independence and insulating them from external pressures such as political retaliation or manipulation.
This protection applies as long as the judge remains in office under the "Good Behavior" clause, which grants them lifetime tenure unless removed through impeachment for serious misconduct like "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
So this doesn't prevent Congress from discontinuing the office itself, since the clause "during their Continuance in Office" refers to the judge and not the office?
You are correct: the phrase "during their Continuance in Office" in Article III, Section 1 refers to the individual judge's tenure, not the office itself. This means that while a judge holds their position, their compensation cannot be reduced. However, this provision does not prevent Congress from discontinuing or abolishing the judicial office itself.
Congress has the constitutional authority to "ordain and establish" inferior courts under Article III, Section 1. This includes the power to reorganize or eliminate specific courts if deemed necessary. If Congress abolishes a judicial office entirely, the judge holding that office would no longer have a position to occupy, and thus the protection of "during their Continuance in Office" would no longer apply because the office itself ceases to exist. This principle reflects the distinction between protecting judicial independence for individuals serving in their roles and Congress's broader authority over the structure of the judiciary.
Does the the phrase "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" also refer to the judge and not the office?
The phrase "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the tenure of the individual judge rather than the office itself. It establishes that judges of both the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts are appointed for life, provided they maintain "good behavior." This lifetime tenure is intended to protect judicial independence by insulating judges from political pressures or external influence, ensuring they can make decisions based solely on the law.
If a judge engages in misconduct or fails to meet the standard of "good behavior," they can be removed through impeachment and conviction. However, the clause does not prevent Congress from abolishing or restructuring judicial offices themselves; it only protects the judge's position while the office exists and they fulfill their duties appropriately.
What would happen to the judge if Congress abolishes the office itself?
If Congress abolishes a judicial office (such as an inferior federal court), the judge holding that office would lose their position because the office itself ceases to exist. While Article III, Section 1 guarantees judges lifetime tenure during "good Behavior" and protects their compensation from being diminished during their tenure, these protections apply only while the judicial office exists. If Congress eliminates the office, the judge is effectively unseated because there is no longer a position for them to occupy.
This authority stems from Congress's constitutional power to "ordain and establish" inferior courts under Article III, which includes the ability to restructure or abolish them. Historical practice confirms that Congress can eliminate lower federal courts, though this raises questions about what happens to the judges' compensation and status afterward.
But you said earlier that this protection applies as long as the judge remains in office.
You're absolutely correct to point out the distinction, and let me clarify further. The protections in Article III, Section 1—specifically the clauses "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and "their Compensation shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office"—apply to individual judges as long as the office itself exists and they remain in that office. If Congress abolishes the office entirely, the judge would no longer have an office to hold, and therefore these protections would no longer apply.
Why This Happens: The Constitution guarantees that judges cannot be removed arbitrarily (except through impeachment for misconduct) and that their salaries cannot be reduced while they remain in office. However, it does not prevent Congress from exercising its authority to abolish or restructure inferior courts under Article III's provision allowing Congress to "ordain and establish" such courts. If the office is abolished, the judge loses their position not because of misconduct or a reduction in their rights, but because the office itself no longer exists.
Historical Example:
An example of this principle occurred in 1802 when Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which had created new judicial positions. The repeal effectively abolished those positions, and the judges appointed under the act lost their offices. This was controversial at the time but was ultimately upheld as constitutional because Congress has authority over the creation and elimination of inferior courts.In summary:
- The protections apply to judges while they hold an existing judicial office.
- If Congress abolishes the office itself, those protections no longer apply because there is no longer an office for the judge to occupy.
-PJ
My guess if that Congress eliminated a court, the judge would simply issue a ruling that the act was unconstitutional. I have little faith that the district court or SCOTUS would overturn him, but support his ruling for their buddies’ job security.
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.