Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/16/2025 12:32:56 PM PDT by george76
The Trump Administration has been doing its part, but the lower courts remain rabid in their attack on the rule of law..
Federal judge James Boasberg advised Chief Justice John Roberts and some two dozen other judges that his D.C. colleagues were “concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis,” according to a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist. That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges’ clear disregard for the presumption of regularity — a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties.
During the week of March 11, 2025, members of the Judicial Conference met in Washington, D.C., for the first of its two regular meetings. As the U.S. Court’s webpage explains, “[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policymaking body for the federal courts.”
The Judicial Conference consists of Chief Justice Roberts, who presides over the body, as well as the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and one district judge from each regional circuit, making for a group of approximately thirty judges. While the Judicial Conference mainstay is considering “administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system,” and “mak[ing] recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch,” a side conversation at the group’s most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail — the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration.
In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March meeting, including a “working breakfast” at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, “District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues’ concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.”
“Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize,” according to the memorandum. The summary of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that “his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.”
Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court’s orders.
Judge Boasberg’s comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges’ “concern” also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C.
And what is both troubling and ironic is that only a few days later, Judge Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law. Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg would later find “the Trump Administration committed criminal contempt of court” by failing to turn the planes around or fly the gang members back to the U.S., even though the court’s written (and unlawful) injunction ordered neither.
As I said at the time, the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court seemed hellbent on finding the Trump Administration in contempt. It would seem, we now know why: Judge Boasberg and his colleagues prejudged Trump as a scofflaw. The reality, though, is the president has shown great restraint in the face of an avalanche of lawless lower court orders.
In fact, recently released emails related to the case before Judge Boasberg confirm the Trump Administration’s intent was and remains to obey all court orders — even those lawless ones. Those emails came to light after a whistleblower made spurious allegations against Emil Bove, whom Trump has nominated to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bove served as the principal associate deputy attorney general at the time the DOJ was representing the Trump Administration before Judge Boasberg. While the whistleblower claimed Bove suggested the DOJ ignore court orders to advance the Trump Administration’s agenda, an email obtained by The Federalist on Friday disproved the claim.
In that email, the whistleblower’s supervisor wrote that the legal team was “called to a meeting with the Deputy Attorney General,” at which Bove “advised our team that we must avoid a court order halting an upcoming operation to implement the Act at all costs.”
As Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, noted yesterday, “Bove telling subordinate DOJ litigators, in advance of anticipated litigation, to avoid a court order that negatively impacts a mission is inconsistent with instructions to outright ignore a court order, and entirely consistent with Bove’s sworn testimony.” And at his confirmation hearing, Bove, under oath, attested that he has “never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order.” But as Justice Alito reminded Americans a mere month after the Judicial Conference attended by Judge Boasberg concluded, “[b]oth the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.” The Trump Administration has been doing its part, but the lower courts remain rabid in their attack on the rule of law — and now we know that at least some judges are likewise flouting their obligation to remain impartial or recuse from the case when they aren’t.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
geeeeeeeee!
imagine THAT!
What.
Arrest Epstein. Or the Clinton’s. Whoever is alive. We want the perp walk
So they’ll go free. They won’t be tried for tge same crime again. We just want the public display
Bondi is blind
Whatever
It’s way past time to impeach Boasberg.
The Tooth Fairy told me so.
Only President Trump gets the Yellow Caution Flag for being the President. The violations of the separation of powers and judicial impartiality make the mind reel. I pray for thee, America, that President Trump should continue to succeed until he has completely prevailed in saving America.
There is an easy way to deal with the ideologues on the DC federal district court. There is a huge backlog of cases in the DC Superior Court which deal with criminal charges such as murder, larceny, assault, etc. and civil suits such as automotive claims. By law, the President can assign the federal judges to hear such cases; thus you would have Boasberg, Kollar-Kotelly and the other ideologues parsing out DC criminal codes for muggings and jaywalking. This would free up added space on the federal district court of DC for Trump appointees.
The daughter works for NGO's at the executive level, and he is on the boards of NGO's.
He,vthe judge has no business hearing cases whatsoever. He can't turn his head left or right without staring at conflicts of interest.
Kind of like Joe and Hunter Biden, Dick Durbin on federal court jurisdiction, in 2020, the Senate Democratic Leader threatened the Court to influence its rulings on abortion, in the wake of the 2024 presidential immunity decision, Democratic House Minority Leader said, “House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.”
There’s a lot more, but a waste of time as it doesn’t create even the slightest impression of honesty and willingness to work for the best interest of the US citizens and not just their best interest.
wy69
Oh geeze
Ya tge judges blocking Trump left and right are so easy to deal with
We didn’t know this.
The Administration has not only upheld both the law AND protocol when dealing with these lawless judicial orders, they’ve gone well out of their way to do so, including crafting lengthy legal justifications within the very executive orders that have been litigated.
Clearly, they expected blowback, but in taking the actions they have executed, the Administration has — at a minimum — reduced the means by which their activities can be legitimately criticized.
In turn, I expect they’ve gained some respect from SCOTUS and made it a lot easier for them to concur with their actions while leaving Boasburg and his ilk with egg on their robes.
Not possible where are you going to get the 2/3’rds vote majority in the Senate for removal. Two possibilities:
1. Dissolve the DC district court. Its been done before. This would be very hard but its just legislation.
2. Transfer judges to other federal districts. Expand the judiciary in a district or use a open vacancy and transfer a problem judge there. I see nothing in the Constitution that says judges are allowed to take root in the district they were appointed to. Who knows they might resign rather then move. Again this will take legislation!
This still does not solve the problem of the Senate judiciary committee and Senators not doing their jobs. Appointing fools and those with conflict of interest problems to those positions!
Really?
Ya think?
Whatever gives you that idea?
Should any one be surprised? The American Bar Assn. and Trial Lawyers Assn. have been solidly democrat for years.
Add to this bench appointments in state courts by deep blue governors. And there you are.
“That’s what I call a self-evident proposition, as the dog’s-meat man said, when the housemaid told him he warn’t a gentleman.”
Claude Rains would be shocked to hear that from Humphrey Bogart.
We all sort of guessed it.
The “Death To America” shirts under the robes and the colorful LGBTQ buttons gave them away.
I’m shocked, shocked!!
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.