Federal judges are, by and large, a cautious lot, not given to dramatic public pronouncements or calling attention to themselves. But now that the judiciary is under a sustained attack from the Trump administration and allies, some judges are speaking out.
During a Thursday webinar presented by the newly formed Speak Up for Justice, a nonpartisan group working to defend the judiciary, a couple of lower court judges were forthright about the threats they’ve faced after ruling against the Trump administration.
U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell, an Obama appointee, revealed that, after blocking President Donald Trump’s catastrophic funding freeze, he received 6 credible death threats, along with more than 400 threatening voicemails.
He played one during the webinar, with the caller saying, “How dare you try to put charges on Donald J. Trump,” and, “I wish somebody would fucking assassinate your ass.”
A cartoon by Clay Bennett.
Similarly, after U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship ban, he was swatted as a result of someone anonymously telling the police that Coughenour killed his wife.
From the bench, Coughenour has been forthright about Trump’s actions.
“It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” he told Justice Department lawyers.
Yes, much of this stems from the Trump administration’s near-constant attacks on judges, often whipped up by Trump personally. There’s also the willingness of congressional Republicans to go along with it, including some of Trump’s more ardent supporters introducing bills calling for the impeachment of judges who rule against him.
But the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, is also at fault.
Rather than squarely addressing the fact that these threats overwhelmingly come from the right and are driven by the president, Roberts has instead offered vague, anodyne statements.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” he said in one statement.
Yes, that’s all Roberts had to say after Trump personally called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ordered the Trump administration to return the planes of deportees heading to El Salvador—an order the administration defied.
The Trump administration has now filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg for private comments to his judicial colleagues, in which he expressed concern about the administration defying court orders.
The problem isn’t just that Roberts is wishy-washy about these threats, speaking about them without ever mentioning Trump by name or acknowledging that his actions are the foundation for the attacks. But he has also joined the other conservatives on the Supreme Court to give Trump whatever he wants, constantly overturning lower court rulings.
These days, separation of powers is indeed for suckers.
Republicans are dying to impeach lower court judges who have ruled against the Trump administration, an unprecedented attack on the judiciary. Meanwhile, over at the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts is utterly unable to meet the moment.
There’s a tiny problem with the Republican impeachment plan. Much like the president, federal judges can only be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s right there in Article II of the Constitution. But Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas, cares nothing for your silly constitution and wants to impeach Judge James Boasberg for the high crimes and misdemeanors of issuing a ruling the administration doesn’t like.
Gill is not a paragon of legislative accomplishment. Before coming to Congress this year, Gill was mostly known as an election denier and the son-in-law of fellow election denier Dinesh D’Souza. Gill has desperately tried to distinguish himself in the crowded field of GOP legislators willing to do unhinged things to get Trump’s attention. Hence, he introduced a bill that would remove Founding Father Benjamin Franklin from the $100 bill and replace it with President Donald Trump.
Too bad that Rep. Joe Wilson, famous for yelling “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during the State of the Union, already introduced a measure to create a new $250 bill and slap Trump’s face on that.
Just as he was not the first legislator who suggested debasing U.S. currency, Gill also wasn’t the first House member to call for impeachment of a lower court judge. That honor goes to Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona, who introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Paul Engelmayer nearly a month ago because Engelmayer blocked the Department of Government Efficiency teens from burrowing into Treasury Department records.
But Gill did win the race to demand Judge James Boasberg be removed from the bench because Boasberg blocked—or tried to block—the administration from summarily deporting over 200 Venezuelans who Trump alleged are members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Boasberg’s order to stop those deportations was met with outright defiance by the administration, which did it anyway.
While Gill’s articles of impeachment say that Boasberg committed high crimes and misdemeanors, Gill’s appearance on Newsmax on Wednesday gave away the game. When asked what crime the judge committed that would fit under “high crimes and misdemeanors,” Gill came up with, “This is for usurping the executive’s authority.”
NEWSMAX: For impeachment you have to have "high crimes and misdemeanors." What crime did the judge commit?
REP. BRANDON GILL: This is for usurping the executive's authority
Even if it were true, which is definitely not the case, it’s unclear how that would count as a high crime or misdemeanor for which impeachment is appropriate. First, intruding upon the executive's authority, however that might irritate Trump, is not actually a crime. The remedy for Boasberg exceeding the bounds of his authority is that the administration gets to appeal to a higher court and argue about it there.
By the time Gill drafted his impeachment articles, he had reworked his theory into a claim that Boasberg had “willfully use[d] his judicial position to advance political gain” and “attempted to seize power from the Executive Branch and interfere with the will of the American people.” Gill then said Boasberg had created a “created a constitutional crisis.”
The House has rarely impeached judges, but usually, it does so when a judge is convicted of an actual crime, made false statements, shown improper favoritism, was drunk on the bench, or abused the power to hold someone in contempt. None of that happened here.
All that happened is that Boasberg made a ruling in which he interpreted the Constitution and United States law to determine whether the administration should be temporarily blocked from deporting people. This was based on what can charitably be called a novel legal theory about the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives the president wide latitude to deport non-citizens during times of war.
Prison guards transfer deportees from the U.S., alleged to be Venezuelan gang members, to the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 16, 2025.
Trump says he has the sole authority to designate non-state actors, like Venezuelan gangs, as enemy aliens who have invaded, and we are therefore at war. Then, he can deport any migrant who he believes falls in that category without any due process.
Judge Boasberg’s ruling, despite being spun by the right as massive overreach, was appropriately cautious. All Boasberg did was issue a 14-day temporary restraining order, freezing deportations for just two weeks while the parties continued to litigate. The notion such a minimal restriction on the administration’s actions constitutes a judicial overreach so outrageous is absurd.
While Gill is doing the president’s dirty work over in the House, Trump is whipping the MAGA faithful into howling for Boasberg’s removal. Meanwhile, Elon Musk is bribing, er, donating to GOP legislators who back impeachment, just to remind them who really runs the show.
All of this adds up to a pretty comprehensive assault on the integrity and authority of the judiciary. However, the man who has been head of the judiciary for nearly 20 years, Chief Justice John Roberts, could not muster even a few strong words about it. Here is the entirety of Roberts’ weak sauce statement:
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
This is a nothingburger. It doesn’t specify who is yelling for impeachment. It says nothing about how attacks on individual judges are beyond the pale. It doesn’t address the administration’s belief it is not bound by lower court orders.
But the news media always grades Roberts on a curve, eager to pretend he is evenhanded rather than a staunch partisan who invented complete immunity for Trump. So they are calling this statement so short that it could fit in a tweet, a “rebuke” of Trump and an “extraordinary display of conflict” between the two branches.
Trump certainly didn’t see it as a rebuke, gloating on Fox that, “Well, he didn’t mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn’t mention my name.”
This is not the behavior of someone who is chastened, who intends to respect the federal courts, or who will stop calling for the impeachment of judges.
Roberts has a front-row seat to the administration’s destruction of the constitutional order. He has the unique power to call this out in a meaningful way. Whether he’s unable to do so because he’s feckless or because he has no problem with the administration’s approach doesn’t matter. Either way, he’s helping deepen the real constitutional crisis we’re facing.
Federal judges are receiving death threats and have expressed serious concerns about their safety, following attacks on the judiciary by President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, conservative activists, and right-wing media.
The climate is so hostile, even right-wing judges are being targeted.
For instance, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sister received an emailed threat that a pipe bomb had been placed in her mailbox. The email turned out to be a hoax. The threat came after the conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration, who was attempting to withhold payments from the U.S. Agency for International Development for work that had already been completed.
Federal judges are receiving pizza deliveries at their homes as part of an intimidation campaign, to let the judges know that their private home addresses are known. A bulletin from the U.S. Marshals Service noted, “We assess that these incidents are related to high-profile cases that have received extensive media coverage and public interest.”
Judge John C. Coughenour, who ruled against Trump’s attempt to abolish birthright citizenship, told The New York Times he had been targeted for a “swatting” attack—a false police report of a crime at his residence that led to a police response. Coughenour also said he received a mailbox bomb threat, which was a hoax.
The Trump administration is on a losing streak in multiple federal courts, as judges again and again say the actions of Trump, the Department of Government Efficiency, and figures like GOP financier Elon Musk are breaking the law or overstepping their legal authority. An analysis by the Washington Post determined that since Trump was sworn in for his second term, he has lost a case every four days.
Trump has gone on the attack instead of accepting his losses like other leaders.
“If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
Trump has also promoted conservative influencers who have targeted judges ruling against the administration.
He isn’t alone. House Republicans have begun the process to impeach judges for insufficient devotion to Trump, while Musk has said it is “necessary” to remove those officials. Conservative media like Fox News has amplified the crusade, with attacks on the judiciary in service of Trump.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who leads the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc and has been a reliable pro-Trump vote, nonetheless expressed concerns about the right’s actions (without directly naming Trump).
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” he wrote in a statement.
Trump’s team has been ignoring rulings and defying orders at a pace that the courts are struggling to keep up with, and now those judges are in the conservative movement’s crosshairs.
In all likelihood, the situation will continue to escalate.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday said a federal judge who attempted to block his administration from deporting hundreds of immigrants to an El Salvadoran gulag should be impeached and removed.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg halted Trump's attempt to deport without due process the alleged Venezuelan immigrants he accused of being members of a violent gang. Trump already ignored Boasberg's order to turn around the planes, which were carrying the alleged immigrants to El Salvador.
But now he wants Boasberg removed altogether, saying in a deranged Truth Social post that Boasberg is a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."
"He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump wrote in his insane and lie-filled screed. "I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"
Multiple House Republicans want to impeach judges who have ruled against Trump and his administration's other illegal actions, including those largely conducted through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
"I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer. Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy," Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona said in a post on X in February, after the judge blocked DOGE staffers from accessing Treasury Department data. Shortly after that post, Crane introduced articles of impeachment against Engelmayer, accusing him of violating his oath and abusing his judicial powers.
And freshman Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas said this past Saturday he was introducing articles of impeachment against Boasberg.
Co-President Elon Musk replied to Gill’s post, writing in an X post that Boasberg’s impeachment is “necessary.”
Elon Musk
But this is the first time Trump has publicly blessed Republican efforts to try to remove judges who are simply interpreting and applying the laws.
Trump got on the impeachment train after Musk, who has not just called for Boasberg’s impeachment but for the disposal of multiple other judges who have ruled against Trump.
“There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” Musk wrote in a post on X in February.
Even the right-wing New York Post editorial board has told Republicans to cut it out with their thirst for ousting federal judges.
“It’s nothing of the kind, and cheering it only makes Musk look reckless—a reputation he doesn’t need when many DOGE actions also face court challenge,” the board wrote.
Meanwhile, the Republican impeachment efforts have led to warnings from sitting federal judges that the campaign to clear the federal bench of anyone who rules against Trump will chill the judicial branch from applying the law out of fear of retribution or even violence.
“Impeachment is not—shouldn’t be—a short circuiting of that process, and so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that,” U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Sullivan said at a news conference earlier in March, according to a report from Bloomberg Law.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, issued a statement condemning the calls for judicial impeachments.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in a curt statement on Tuesday—a sign he thinks the impeachment talk is dangerous and not merely bluster.
It’s unclear if any of the impeachment efforts will make it to the House floor for a vote. But if they do, we will see just how many Republicans will shred the rule of law to blindly follow Dear Leader.
There were numerous, er, notable moments from President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, but perhaps one of the most striking was when he turned to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, patted him on the back, and said he “won’t forget it.”
“Thank you again. Thank you again. Won’t forget it,” the president said while shaking Roberts’ hand after delivering his speech.
We don’t know exactly what Trump meant by this, considering all of the favors Roberts has done for him. After all, Roberts is responsible for authoring the decision that grants former presidents immunity from prosecution, essentially giving them power to commit crimes under the guise of “official acts” in office.
There was also the Roberts-authored ruling that narrowed obstruction charges for defendants accused of participating in the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and the time when the Supreme Court’s conservative majority usurped the Fourteenth Amendment, ruling that states could not disqualify Trump from the ballot despite the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists holding office.
In short, Trump could have been thanking Roberts for a number of things, but the president insists that his gesture was merely routine.
“Like most people, I don’t watch Fake News CNN or MSDNC, but I understand they are going ‘crazy’ asking what is it that I was thanking Justice Roberts for? They never called my office to ask, of course, but if they had I would have told these sleazebag ‘journalists’ that I thanked him for SWEARING ME IN ON INAUGURATION DAY, AND DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB IN SO DOING!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, with “MSNDC” being a portmanteau of MSNBC and the Democratic National Convention.
Judge Juan Merchan presides over proceedings in the hush money case against President Donald Trump on May 7, 2024.
But as judges who bow to the president receive gratitude, those who don’t are met with death threats.
According to Reuters, law enforcement has warned federal judges that they are facing unusually high levels of threat as they attempt to uphold the law despite Trump and his allies’ efforts to undermine it.
Eleven judges expressed concern to Reuters about their physical security, saying that they’ve faced death threats in recent weeks.
And Musk isn’t the only one criticizing the judiciary.
In February, Vice President JD Vance posted on X that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” suggesting that Trump possesses ultimate authority.
While Roberts hasn’t been as compliant as some other members of the Supreme Court—and has even shown a willingness to break with his conservative colleagues—he’s still unlikely to serve as a check on Trump’s lawlessness.
At least two judges, Tanya Chutkan and Juan Merchan, faced threats for presiding over cases involving Trump where the verdicts were rejected by conservatives.
Meanwhile, the six Republican Supreme Court appointees, three of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term, have delivered some stunning victories in the president’s favor. And considering that conservative judges often assist Trump in his continued assault on democracy, he might have even more to thank them for in the future.
Roberts stated in December that “violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats” jeopardize judicial independence, so it would be hypocritical if he’s now helping Trump dismantle existing statutes.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts admonished liberal members of the court in his opinion that vastly expanded the idea of presidential immunity on Monday. The court’s three liberal members were only “fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals,” he wrote.
That finger-wag toward terrified, dissenting justices came only a few hours after Donald Trump signaled his desire for “televised military tribunals” that would try former Rep. Liz Cheney for treason.
On call with Biden-Harris campaign, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) says SCOTUS' decision on presidential immunity means a Trump re-election isn't just the biggest threat to democracy in a generation. "It's far and away the biggest threat since the Civil War."
Everything that the Supreme Court has done in these rulings paves the way for Trump and his allies’ Project 2025 to complete the purge of democracy that this court has already begun. And it all makes defeating Trump infinitely more important.
There was a time when Roberts was seen as a moderating voice on the Supreme Court, as someone who was concerned about the court being accused of partisanship, and who was willing to ally with the court’s more liberal elements to keep a new conservative majority under control. But the court-watchers who made such predictions could not have been more wrong.
Despite his odes to stare decisis, Roberts has consistently voted to overturn long-standing precedent. Since gaining the support of three Trump-appointed radicals, Roberts has become a reliable member of a series of 6-3 decisions that have redefined the traditional role of the three branches of government.
In the decision on presidential immunity, Roberts is trying to dismiss the dissents of the three remaining liberal judges as overblown, but if anything, they are a subdued response to this ruling.
The ruling extends absolute immunity to anything that falls within the “‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” Roberts writes.
In determining whether an act is official, “courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
Also, courts can’t “deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”
If you’re having trouble seeing how anyone is permitted to question any action of the president under this ruling, you’re not the only one.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in her dissent, “Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law—applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government.” She makes it clear that the court creates a “multilayered, multifaceted threshold” that would have to be cleared to charge a president under any circumstance, meaning that “no matter how well documented or heinous the criminal act might be,” it can still be dismissed.
And when it comes to the theoretical example that was raised during oral arguments, yes, “a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics” or who “indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup” still has “a fair shot at getting immunity” for those actions.
Don't tell me the conservative justices don't believe in abortion rights. They are currently trying to abort democracy in the 992nd trimester. And if they get Trump onto the throne they’ve built, the odds of ever finding America again are slim to none.
President Joe Biden may be the last remaining politician in Washington who maintains endless respect for the institutions we have inherited and the network of implicit agreements that kept our democracy patched together over two centuries. As recently as a year ago, he rejected the idea of expanding the number of justices or taking other actions to restrain a court veering dangerously away from its traditional role.
Biden needs to reconsider. The damage this court has done, in just a matter of days, is inestimable, and those horrific decisions are stacked on top of years of increasingly nonsensical rulings, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
This is a highly partisan court whose primary interest is in enacting a radical MAGA agenda. It’s also a court that has repeatedly made clear that it holds itself above the law and has nothing but contempt for anyone trying to hold it accountable. Now it wants to extend that privilege to Trump.
This court must be tamed. But most of all, this court must be prevented from joining the man whose throne they have been preparing. This nation can’t survive this court and Donald Trump.
Joe Biden is going to have to beat them both. And we’re going to have to help him.
"If Joe Biden is not elected in November, we will not have a democracy that we have known for 250 years," says Goldman, who led the first House impeachment investigation into Trump in 2019.
Republicans are always on the lookout for their next attack on President Joe Biden, and on Monday, Fox News personality John Roberts pulled one out of thin air.
“With war raging in Israel, the @WhiteHouse called a lid for @JoeBiden at 11:46am,” Roberts tweeted. A “lid,” as Taegan Goddard’s Political Dictionary explains, “is what White House press secretaries use to indicate that there will be no news coming out of the White House that day.” Relevant to this manufactured controversy, the Political Dictionary goes on to say:
However, it’s important to note that calling a lid does not necessarily mean that the President’s workday is over or that no more newsworthy events will happen that day.
The President may still have private meetings, phone calls, or other activities that are not open to the press.
In fact, a lid may mean that the behind-the-scenes work of the presidency is particularly intense in ways that keep the president away from the news cameras.
For instance, on Monday afternoon, Axios reports, “Biden convened a call with the leaders of the U.K., France, Italy and Germany, who together issued a joint statement unequivocally condemning Hamas.” A five-nation joint statement doesn’t just happen. It takes work and back-and-forth and negotiation over the very exact wording. Much of that work was done after the White House called a lid.
Here’s another example of what might be going on: On May 1, 2011, the Obama White House called a lid in the early afternoon. Unusually, the lid was lifted in the late evening. In a 10:30 PM statement, then-President Barack Obama announced the operation that had killed Osama bin Laden.
As a former White House correspondent—including during the Obama years—Roberts knew that calling a lid did not mean work at the White House had ceased for the day. But he tweeted the implication that it did, and a number of Republicans took it and ran with it.
“Alabamians don’t work those kind of hours,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville commented in a quote-tweet of Roberts on Monday afternoon. The Senate is not in session this entire week, so Tuberville is at his leisure to be not working at home in Alabama or Florida or wherever he lives.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene quote-tweeted a different Fox News personality’s tweet about the lid. “We have Americans held hostage by Hamas and Joe Biden is taking the day off,” Greene wrote. “President Trump would never do this. He would not stop working until he got our people back.”
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer piggybacked on the general line of attack with a “Where is President Biden?” tweet, though he had the self-awareness not to pretend he didn’t know what a lid is. Other right-wing media personalities joined in on the claim that Biden wasn’t doing anything on Monday.
This attempt to paint Biden as missing in action came just hours before the joint statement with the U.K., France, Italy, and Germany went out. That wasn’t the only attack, of course. Republicans have also been busy trying to draw a line between the recent release of impounded Iranian funds and the attack. Although, as Daily Kos’ Mark Sumner noted, use of the money has to be approved by a third-party arbiter, it must be used for humanitarian purposes, and none of it has been spent yet anyway.
It’s true that the party of Donald Trump and his endless “executive time” may have forgotten that most presidents do work when the cameras are off. But mostly Republicans are just dishonest and desperate to turn every significant news event into an attack on Biden. This is why Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel saw the initial Hamas attacks on Israel as “a great opportunity for our candidates”: To Republicans, what’s happening in the world—even if it involves hundreds of people being killed—is always less important than the partisan advantage they might be able to leverage out of it. It’s a disgusting mindset, but they’re not backing off from it.
Harlan Crow, Texas real estate magnate and very dear friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has instructed his lawyer to tell yet another Senate committee to pound sand. Congress doesn’t have the authority to oversee the Supreme Court, the lawyer asserted in a response to the Judiciary Committee’s request for details of the millions of dollars in gifts, travel, hospitality, and real estate transactions provided to Thomas by Crow—money and perks that Thomas has failed to disclose for decades, potentially in violation of federal disclosure laws.
“After careful consideration,” Crow’s lawyer, Michael Bopp, writes, “we do not believe the Committee has the authority to investigate Mr. Crow's personal friendship with Justice Clarence Thomas.” Of course it has that authority. That whole “checks and balances” business we all learned about in civics class—that’s what that’s about. The founders wouldn’t have allowed for the impeachment of Supreme Court justices if they didn’t intend for Congress to be able to check the court.
Crow’s lawyer isn’t just asserting that the Supreme Court is off limits, but that anyone a justice receives special favors from is off limits, too. Life’s great when you’re an untouchable billionaire in America. What the committee was asking for is Crow’s records, not Thomas’, as Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin pointed out. “Mr. Crow’s letter relies on a separation of powers defense when Mr. Crow does not work, and has never worked, for the Supreme Court.”
It’s similar to the argument that Crow’s lawyers made to Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the Finance Committee, when he requested records disclosing all the expensive things Crow has bestowed upon Thomas and Crow’s reporting of these gifts for tax purposes, which the committee oversees. Bopp responded to Wyden with a refusal and claim that the Finance Committee doesn’t have the right to ask for that information, writing that the “Committee must have a legitimate legislative purpose for any inquiry, and the scope of the inquiry must be reasonably related to that purpose.”
Wyden slammed back, assuring Crow’s attorney that his “claim is without merit” and “ignores the Committee’s extensive history considering legislation on matters related to the gift tax, which is a backstop to both our nation’s income and estate tax regimes.” He demanded the information again, and in a statement said it was possible that the committee would have to “follow another route to compel his answers, and I’m prepared to make that happen.” In other words: a subpoena.
Durbin suggested he would consider that route as well, now that Sen. Dianne Feinstein has returned from her illness and Democrats have a majority vote on the committee again, with the power to issue subpoenas. “The Committee will respond more fully to this letter in short order,” Durbin said.
Crow clearly believes he’s not answerable to anyone, and by extension, neither should Thomas be. It’s the premise Chief Justice John Roberts has also adopted with his absolute refusal to appear before the committee to talk about the massive lapses in ethics that have come to light recently. They’re all taking the “Supreme” part of the title way too literally.
Crow insists that he’s a “private person,” “just an old guy” with a penchant for collecting Supreme Court justices to go along with his Nazi memorabilia and statues of dictators. The fact that he’s poured tons of money into right-wing causes, and recruited other millionaires and billionaires to the cause of turning the Supreme Court into the hyperpartisan political entity it is doesn’t mean that he’s not acting with the purest of motives when it comes to his friendship with Thomas.
That seems to be the prevailing attitude on the court, and that’s a massive problem for the nation when public confidence in the highest court has plunged to the lowest level in decades, in multiple surveys. Notably, most were conducted before all the revelations of Thomas’ extremely generous and secretive friend.
It is objectively dangerous for the court to be considered illegitimate by the people. It’s even more dangerous to have the court behave so badly. The government as a whole is resting on what’s a pretty flimsy piece of parchment, after all. It continues to exist as a democracy only as long as we all agree that it should. Or as long as every official who took an oath to the Constitution abides by that commitment.
The current majority on the court isn’t doing that. They won’t do that. They won’t even talk to Congress about whether or not they should be living by the most basic of ethics rules. That has to be fixed, and it has to be done by Congress and the White House. The only way to deal with the problem quickly is to expand the court. After that, further reforms can be examined, but right now, it’s the best way.
Hell yeah! Democrats and progressives simply crushed it from coast to coast on Tuesday night, so co-hosts David Nir and David Beard are devoting this week's entire episode of "The Downballot" to reveling in all the highlights. At the very top of the list is Jacksonville, where Democrats won the mayor's race for just the second time in three decades—and gave the Florida Democratic Party a much-needed shot in the arm. Republicans also lost the mayor's office in the longtime conservative bastion of Colorado Springs for the first time since the city began holding direct elections for the job 45 years ago.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday temporarily halted the Biden administration’s planned lifting of the anti-asylum Title 42 order, granting a so-called emergency appeal from a slate of Republican attorneys general. “So-called emergency appeal,” because the appeals court panel that had last week denied the GOP request noted that the group of 19 attorneys general had waited too long to file their request.
The Biden administration had planned to lift the debunked public health order that’s used the pandemic as an excuse to quickly deport asylum-seekers in violation of their rights Tuesday evening, following a lower court order. Roberts instructed the administration to respond by this evening, indicating more action could be imminent. Legal expert Mark Joseph Stern noted that Roberts’ administrative stay “does not hint at the eventual outcome.”
Republicans have simultaneously claimed that the Biden administration has an “open borders” policy while insisting that the Title 42 policy—which was implemented against the advice of public health experts by noted white supremacist Stephen Miller and Mike Pence at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020—must stay in place indefinitely. They have also insisted this public health order remain as they’ve consistently challenged other pandemic-related orders by the administration.
“The Biden administration, for its part, has insisted it is prepared to lift Title 42, saying the restoration of regular immigration procedures, such expedited deportations, will allow the U.S. to gradually reduce migrant arrivals and the high rate of repeat crossings recorded during the pandemic,” CBS News reported.
That last part is crucial: Title 42 in fact led to an increase in apprehensions, because desperate people blocked from their asylum rights and expelled have had no choice but to try again. It’s a failed policy, and its lifting would put our country back on the side of respecting U.S. and international asylum law. In a statement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that as required by Roberts’ order, “the Title 42 public health order will remain in effect at this time and individuals who attempt to enter the United States unlawfully will continue to be expelled to Mexico.”
“While this stage of the litigation proceeds, we will continue our preparations to manage the border in a safe, orderly, and humane way when the Title 42 public health order lifts,” Mayorkas continued. “We urge Congress to use this time to provide the funds we have requested for border security and management and advance the comprehensive immigration measures President Biden proposed on his first day in office.”
House Republicans set to take power in the next Congress have indicated they’re serious about leading on immigration policy … by pushing a harebrained idea to impeach Mayorkas. Over what crimes? They haven’t figured that part out yet.
Vice President Kamala Harris similarly noted the need for lawmakers to lead on comprehensive immigration measures, and she called out for Republicans for failing to come to the table. They obsess on the issue of immigration only when it’s election season (my words, not hers). For example, a proposed framework that would have passed permanent relief for young immigrants in exchange for harsh border measures recently failed, derailed by Republicans’ “border first” excuses even though there was border stuff in there.
"I think that there is so much that needs to happen to address the issue," the vice president told NPR. "And sadly, what we have seen in particular, I am sad to say, from Republicans in Congress is an unwillingness to engage in any meaningful reform that could actually fix a lot of what we are witnessing.”
Sen. Rand Paul continues to be a flaming heap of whistleblower-outing trash. Whistleblowers are protected for reasons that an alleged libertarian like Paul should appreciate—that protection encourages people to come forward when they see something wrong in government. But after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read Paul’s question naming the person who Republicans believe to have been the whistleblower on Donald Trump’s impeachable Ukraine call, Paul took matters into his own hands.
He’s already read the question, with the name, to reporters. But apparently he didn’t get enough attention for that, so on Tuesday, Paul brought a large poster of his question up with him as he made a floor speech in the Senate, during which he read the question.
To recap: the chief justice refused to read Paul’s question because it named a rumored whistleblower, possibly endangering that person. Paul then held a news conference to read the same question, and then, as if he hadn’t done enough, read it on the Senate floor while standing before it printed on a large poster, for anyone watching C-SPAN to hear and see.
Paul has insisted that this is all innocent because he doesn’t know that this is the whistleblower, he just happens to be asking lengthy questions about a random person whose name hasn’t come up in the impeachment for … reasons. I think we know the reason, and the reason is that Rand Paul is a terrible piece of human trash and he’s part of a political party that rewards that.
