Dear Chief Justice Roberts, Do Your Job
My take on Chief Justice Roberts admonition against impeaching federal district court judges: “So Chief Justice Roberts, if you want the normal appellate process to work, you have to make it work. You have to do your job. The Supreme Court needs to do its job, and the appeals courts need to do their jobs.”
I have written and spoken frequently about the problem of District Court Judges exceeding their separation of powers boundaries.
A month ago I posted this video which has regained traction.
In one of the cases, the four conserative Justices issued a blistering dissent over the Court’s refusal to put an end to it.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned….
Unfortunately, a majority has now undone that stay. As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility….
Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.”
Now it is at an apex with calls to impeach the district court judge who issued the order that planes already in flight (and possibly in international airspace) carrying Venezuelan gang members out of the country turn around mid-flight. Trump joined those calls in his usual subtle manner:
That prompted a response from Chief Justice John Roberts to let the normal appellate process work:
“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.”
Here is my HOT TAKE:
Transcript auto-generated, may contain transcription errors
We are facing an increasing crisis where the federal judiciary at the district court level has been exercising powers that normally should be exercised by the executive branch.
I’ve been talking about this almost since the start of the Trump administration 2.0. The Democrats organized a blitzkrieg of lawsuits against the administration intended to disrupt and to freeze the executive branch, and unfortunately, to a certain degree, it has been working because district court judges have been stepping out of their separation of powers lane.
We had a case involving the restoration of an officer to the administration who Donald Trump fired. He’s now finally gone, but only after he was put back in place by a district court judge.
We had a district court judge at 1:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning rule that Treasury officials could not have access to Treasury systems for payments, literally decapitating the Treasury Department. It was walked back by another judge, but it happened.
We had district courts rule that the people auditing the systems from DOGE could not have access to them.
And just a couple of days ago, we had a district court judge who ordered that planes in flight carrying designated members of terrorist organizations being flown out of the country pursuant to the presidential powers had to turn around midflight, not even knowing whether they had the fuel to do so.
This has given rise to an uprising and calls for impeachment of various district court judges. I haven’t advocated that, but today Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement speaking out against the impeachment proceedings and talking about letting the normal appellate process run.
The problem is the normal appellate process has not been running. It has not been working. The district court judges have been deliberately framing their relief, their relief which will not ultimately hold up on appellate review, as temporary restraining orders so that there’s difficulty of review.
Twice the government went to the Supreme Court asking them to step in and stop this, and unfortunately the Supreme Court refused to do so.
Justice Alito issued a statement on behalf of the four conservatives in one of the cases where the judge, the district court judge, had ordered $2 billion in government contracts to be paid within 36 hours, not even knowing what the contracts were, and despite the government’s statement they wanted to review them to make sure there wasn’t fraud there. And the court—the three liberals plus Chief Justice Roberts plus Justice Barrett—refused to hear the case, and Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh issued a powerful statement that the court has not met its obligation—meaning the Supreme Court has not met its obligation—to make sure that the district courts stay within their constitutional bounds.
So it’s not just Republicans who want impeachment claiming it. It’s not just people upset with the decisions.
So Chief Justice Roberts, if you want the normal appellate process to work, you have to make it work. You have to do your job. The Supreme Court needs to do its job, and the appeals courts need to do their jobs.
Yes, ideally we wouldn’t even be talking about impeachment. It’s a measure of last resort born of frustration that the appellate process has not been working. So don’t lecture to the public who’s concerned. You need to lecture and you need to take action as the Supreme Court to rein in the district courts who have stepped out of their separation of powers boundaries and who have created this crisis.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Thanks, Prof J. This is an opportunity to address and clarify the reach and authority of unelected, unaccountable jurists with lifetime appointments. It should be one to go along with Marbury v. Madison in con law class. I wish I had more confidence in this Court to adequately address it.
Every day it appears that the courts have decided the President has literally no power to do ANYTHING… well unless he is a Democrat then he has absolute power and they can do nothing
Only President Trump,..this will all change when an Establishment approved president is in office
I’m not certain that will occur. The Ds and and the so-called “progressive” big government (the D way) lefties will vilify yet another R as soon as she or he seeks the office of President. (Just as they now demonize Elon Musk, beginning when he recognized the shameful D Party.)
CJ Roberts’ comments miss the point. The issue is that Judge Boasberg has intentionally exceeded his authority and is misusing his office for political ends. That is not a appellate matter (i.e. no law needs clarification or no guidance is called for) but a response to an intentionally unauthorized act. CJ Roberts ought to be addressing the issue of judicial activism which has occasioned the calls for impeachment, not criticize the call for impeachment itself. CJ Roberts needs to provide some leadership, not a weak, hand wringing comment about the process. Its not the process, its about the misuse of office.
Further, where were the CJ Roberts comments about Sen. Schumer’s threats to the Supreme Court Justices (“We’re coming to get you”), or the deafening absence of action to protect Justice Kavanaugh? If CJ Roberts wants to be a leader, be a leader!
CJ Roberts ought to be criticized, not the appropriate calls in reaction to wrongful judicial activism.
We’ve got us a bad chief justice. People have speculated on why for years. (Earlier theory: Some sort of blackmail.)
Seems the guy is a bit of a limp wristed wet fish
another judge just ordered USAID to be fully reinstated.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/us-news/judge-rules-doges-usaid-dismantling-likely-violates-the-constitution/
So Trump has 7 days to re-issue the order? Seems doable.
It seems to me that the only solution to this is to ignore any order that infringes on executive privledge,
Exactly what the dems are hoping.
Grounds for impeachment.
They don’t have the votes
I don’t care about votes. I care about the investigation. Pull these aholes in and grill them. They think themselves above the law and that their actions have no personnel consequences. Show them that is not the case. Make them lawyer up and sweat. Maybe they’ll think the next time about putting personal politics above the law when they have a decision to render.
Dems have already shown they don’t need grounds to impeach. They just need the votes
Roberts is a milquetoast loser, just like the clown that nominated him.
“So Chief Justice Roberts, if you want the normal appellate process to work, you have to make it work. You have to do your job. The Supreme Court needs to do its job, and the appeals courts need to do their jobs.”
Paraphrase by Paula: “The problem is, no one is doing their job.”
222 years ago, the Supreme Court declared themselves the final arbiter on questions of constitutionality. Professor Jacobson is correct… if the courts believe they are the ultimate power and a check on the congress and the executive, they need to do their job. Not in a year or 5 years, but now.
One of the reasons we have 3 branches of GoV”t is to be a check on a rogue , extremist , moron. Congress has been disguntingly spineless when it comes to speaking out against the moron. So somebody has to do it. Prof Jacobsen , every time you write a disjointed article defending him remember what you are defending. 3 frauds, sexual assault, libel, 34 felony counts guilty . 3 more felony indictments where he would surely have been convictes. This is who you are standing for. Not a good look..
Biden just completely ignored the Supreme Court. Your President, Donald Trump, is exercising lawful powers previously exercised by previous presidents. Only now some judges don’t like it because Orange Man Bad. Conservatives warned that pushing the envelope on presidential powers would lead to people democrats don’t like using them. So tough luck.
Also, perhaps you should stop talking about disjointed statements and morons given your poor spelling and grammar and non sequiturs. You literally don’t make sense.
But by all means, continue posting if it makes you feel better. It won’t change anything. Trump will still be your President and you’ll still be unable to do anything about it.
No, he did not.
And neither is Trump. Nor is he ignoring the district courts, at least so far. But perhaps the time is coming when he should. If an order comes along that is plainly ultra vires, he should defy it and see what happens.
Actually he did and bragged about it… but you do you….
No, he did not, and no matter how many times you lie about it it will remain untrue. But you’re used to lying, so what’s one more lie?
Milhouse he flatly and bluntly did. Why do you insist on trying to argue that black is white?
No, he did not defy the court. The plane was already in international space by the time the order was received. And El Salvador already started removing the gangsters.
4rdm2, no, he did not. I am simply stating the plain facts; you are the one insisting on a falsehood, apparently for no other reason than that you hate Biden. Hating him is justified, but making things up about him is not. He did enough bad things without making up any more.
The Ratio is strong with this one.
Shut up, thou illiterate fool.
Stalin Boy speaks!
Your glaring inability to post comments without slinging infantile, sandbox insults, says it all.
It is possible to have amicable exchanges of ideas among people of varied political views, but, not with leftist fanatics, such as yourself.
You lack civility and any scintilla of intelligence.
Transtesticle1156 comes here to opine about that which he does not know. It is a liar of the nth degree.
If you made any statement that made sense, people would agree with you. But apparently that butt pounding that you get every day has pushed the crap up into your infected brain.
The best thing about you? You will never be president like Trump, you will never have the following equal to Biden, the worst president to ever destroy the brown house (because of the indelible stain that he has left).
You will never be remembered years from now, when your body is rotten with maggots. You will have been nothing but a pimple on the ass of a leech.
May you rot in quiet solitude, with decades of Dementia forcing you to live in darkness, ignored and alone.
I’m introducing articles of impeachment against tjv1156 for his uncivil attack on the Professor as a violation of the terms of use of this site.
Everyone whose screen name starts with a consonant or number will have an impeachment vote.
Everyone whose screen name starts with a vowel will have a removal vote.
Consensus rules.
Let’s go.
I vote to impeach.
I vote to impeach.
It seems a fairly easy decision. If a judge takes on power that he doesn’t have and issues orders that are beyond the scope of the judiciary and his/her authority as a district judge then they’re no longer impartial as they have been shown to have a glaring lack of judgement. They should be removed immediately.
And I vote to remove
Being in your cult is a worse look. Quite pathetic indeed. Swallowed every hoax and nor regurgitates like a parrot. Not a good look. Sounding like Sunny Hostin. Not a good look. Clearly a victim of TDS. Not a good look at all. Most Americans laugh at your cultish fetish, and their laughs are not only real, but a very good look.
You’re such a clown.
Trump, as the Executive Branch, is well within his rights to take the actions he has. Conversely, the judges – the lesser court judges – of the Judiciary Branch do not have the right of judiciary review. That power, is an IMPLIED power only, as it is NOT specified in the Constitution. If ANY court does have any measure of such power, it is the Supreme Court. Again, these lesser court judges have ZERO such power.
That is wrong. The lower courts have the same judicial power as the supreme court. And that is not an implied power. It’s just as explicit as the president’s executive power.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts”.
Those two clauses are exactly parallel. The judicial power is the power to say what the law is.
Not implied? Show me where it says that in the Constitution
I see nothing in the Constitution that says anything about judicial review
“The judicial power”. That is the power to say what the law is. It’s just as explicit as the executive power.
“”“The judicial power”. That is the power to say what the law is.””
Sort of leaving Congress out of the picture, isn’t it? They wrote it, they have the right and obligation to say what it means and clarify any confusion. The “judicial power” would seem to be the obligation to administer the law as written, not to second guess it.
No, they don’t. The constitution denies them that power. The founders were very very clear about this, so I don’t understand why you are so confused about it. The judicial power IS nothing more or less than the power to say what the law is. The legislature makes the laws; the judiciary interprets them. End of story.
Why do you guys even bother feeding this troll anymore?
thank you.
as Bilbo might say, “the more you feed a troll, the more noisome it grows.”
In addition to you, it seems that judicial is full of rogue, extremist, morons.
You miserable, leftist, piece of trash. You refuse to believe that Trump has executive powers that can’t be overruled by a thug in a robe. This has become a mental health issue and you really need an evaluation.
What a hateful little troll you are. Did a Jewish girl steal your boyfriend?
Were you that old man who got caught on camera for keying a Tesla? Or maybe you’re that stupid waitress who said, “No Mexican food for MAGA!” and got fired.
Clown.
That would be DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF to you
Where in Prof. Jacobson’s article or video speech did he defend Trump? I didn’t see that. Heck, Trump barely got a few mentions in this article.
What I saw and read was, Prof. Jacobson is criticizing Chief Justice Roberts for telling America we need to let “the process” work, all the while pointedly allowing “the process” to be subverted and broken by Leftist judicial activists. He’s saying that if Roberts wants us to let “the process” work, he needs to step up and make sure it is, in fact, working as it should.
Based on the multiple examples provided, it’s a legitimate criticism — also a long-standing one, these being just the most recent high-profile cases — and which has crap-all to do with who is sitting in the Oval Office.
But you go ahead and let your TDS do the talking. Make it all about Orange Man Bad so you can willfully overlook where the real problems lie.
You are looking at this as the Courts swerving out of their constitutional lanes. They are not. The Courts are merely the judicial wing of the Democrat Party and are right now laying the foundation to remove Trump before his term expires.
In short, all of these rulings are meant to goad Trump into ignoring “court orders” . Each of these ignored orders is a writ of impeachment come January 2027. At that time, Democrats will seek to steal key elections and take control of the House and Senate. Roberts will be the presiding judge at the Senate trial –and Roberts today just showed us his brand new Kangaroo suit.
You’re right. But it doesn’t matter. They’ll just make something up to impeach him over if they gain power. Just like they made up fake crimes to try him on.
Oh! it was his kangaroo suit, was it?
and here I thought it was his nether regions.
I don’t think the left is that smart… they just have a slew of crazy judges they installed that will say and do anything….just throwing ever at the wall and seeing what sticks.
What Roberts seems to be arguing is ‘trust the process’. That’s fine IF the process is being followed. However, instead of taking head on the issue of inferior Court Judge at District level imposing Nationwide orders SCOTUS keeps punting. Not just under Roberts as Chief Justice but with his concurrence. Every time Roberts chooses to join a 5/4 majority refusing to take up a case on this issue or other controversial issue of Judicial overreach into the power of the Executive or Congress he has undermined his own argument.
The Judiciary is completely reliant upon the willingness of Congress and the Executive to comply. It has zero inherent power to enforce decisions if the other co equal Branches refuse. That willingness is predicated on faith that the Judiciary will act impartially within the constraints upon its own authority. The erosion of that faith is very visible. If Roberts doesn’t like the idea of the political power of impeachment being used to rein in inferior Court Judges gone wild….he would do well to rein them in internally within the Judicial Branch. Congress can always dissolve the inferior Courts by simple majority vote which is far easier to achieve than the 67 Senate votes needed to remove following an impeachment in the HoR.
He’s the epitome of a wuss.
Roberts’ “rare public statements” seem to only ever go in one direction.
Not really a bush judge
An obama judge
I often wonder what the Dem thugocracy is holding over Roberts’ head.
Wish Bondi would publish the REAL Epstein dirt, so we’d all know.
Sometimes I get the feeling there are people reminding Roberts what a terrible shame it would be if some of his family ‘s sealed court documents were to leak.
The real point is, no one cares. I just assume that everyone in the govt. is corrupt and evil. If they prove me wrong, I’m very happy.
Conventions mark agreements and they found the law, which cannot found itself. Violate the conventions and you lose agreements that found the law.
Abstractly the law makes possible economic cooperation and capture of the benefits of trade, without all your capital going into self defense instead of production. People more or less agree to that.
The way to go is not impeaching judges but to declare them vexatious litigants who can’t decide anything without concurrence of the Supreme Court.
“vexatious litigants”: That sounds both economical and brilliant, but how does one go about doing that?
When the Professor is right, he’s right.
And he’s 150% right here.
The federal judiciary has been overhauled in the power maybe it’s time to put that fear back in them. Can’t replace them but there are other avenues to get them to think Constitutionally.
Lawyers and judges are incapable of policing themselves. The courts both federal and local are corrupt beyond repair. The courts are part of the administrative state and will do whatever is necessary to destroy anything that challenges it. Any system that allows its rules to be used against it, to destroy it, is of no use. Despite the Trump bump in the road the failure of the republic is assured.
Roberts has always had a strong (for him) reaction against anything that might even hint at criticism of the courts. I don’t expect him to do his job. It’s not like he has a great track record of doing it.
SCOTUS has no value anymore. This third portion of the Constitutional checks and balances has failed. Passive-aggressive stance is unbecoming. The Court has shown itself worthless.
Justice Roberts the problem isn’t President Trump or Congress. The problem is District Court Judges who you as titular head are responsible for. Aren’t you the same Supreme who with sweaty hands and shifting eyes approved Obama Care on shaky grounds? What do they have on you? Aren’t you the same Supreme who appointed to the FISA court that ram rodded wire tapping of a sitting President? And then your choice Judge Bosaberg gave the DOJ lawyer a slap on the wrist for modifying and lying to FISA court to get a wire tap on Carter Page? It sounds and looks like to me that you are a large part of the problem. Once again sir, I ask you, what do they have on you?
Epstein?
He and his wife adopted their daughters from Ireland at a time when Ireland banned foreign adoptions.
That’s really not enough
It’s more
What “daughters”? That blooper alone proves you’re full of it.
The Dread Coward Roberts is doing what he considers his job, and protecting the precious legitimacy of his court.
To him ‘legitimacy’ means ‘claim that they cannot be criticized ever, for any reason, and simply ignore the leftist hacks giving us a bad name’.
He’s a coward, through and through.
Their goal is to disrupt official executive proceedings. How many J6ers were imprisoned for disrupting official government proceedings?
Roberts has been fixated on maintaining the integrity of the federal court system. Problem is, at the rate he’s going he’ll be the one who destroys it.
I’m afraid Roberts will go down in the books as the worst Chief Justice in the history of SCOTUS
Maybe one of the constitutional legal types here can answer this question: Does the Congress have the ability to create and/or dissolve “inferior” courts”?
“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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Yes, it does. Robert Barnes has been advocating for years to the dissolution of the D.C. and SDNY districts. Congress has the authority to create, abolish, and merge districts, and to re-assign judges in the realignment.
Yes, it does.
That doesn’t somehow mean the inferior courts don’t have the judicial power invested in them. They have the same power as the supreme court to say what the law is, subject of course to the review of their superior courts, all the way up to the supreme court.
Ah but they can preach from the unemployment line when their courts are dissolved and troublesome judges are not invited to join their replacement courts.
Not so. At least the precedent for over two centuries is that when a court is abolished the judges on it must be moved to some other court. They can’t be fired except for bad conduct, and conduct does not mean a decision Congress doesn’t like.
IANAL, but it appears Congress can dissolve inferior courts; the power to ordain and establish implies the power to dissolve. They could also remove individual judges from their offices (call it impeachment if you want).
The key phrase in Article III, Section 1, is “shall hold their Office during good Behaviour” (emphasis mine). If Congress were to decide that stepping outside one’s judicial lane, violating the Separation of Powers, and ordering the Executive to take an action not prescribed by law or in an impossible timeline (showing bad faith) is not “good Behaviour”, then — in theory — that judge loses his/her Constitutional authority and can be removed.
There’s no word or phrase in the Constitution that the Founders didn’t intentionally include. If “during good Behaviour” survived the proof-reading and editing process, it has a reason and purpose.
Wrong. Judges cannot be removed for decisions Congress doesn’t like. They can be removed only for bad behavior. That means things like bribery, drunkenness, being caught up in some scandal, not how they do their job.
Roberts doesn’t know the history of his own court.
The first attack on the SCOTUS came early. Although Justice Chase was not removed, his impeachment had the desired effect of reining him in and quieting his partisanship.
Also, eight federal judges have been impeached and removed from office. The threat is not only real, it can be completely justified. The authority to remove judges and justices wasn’t included in the Constitution because the judiciary is beyond rebuke. The Constitution’s authors assumed the judiciary could become partisan, and it didn’t take long for that to happen.
Roberts knows the history very well. The Chase impeachment failed precisely because there was a national consensus that it had been improper. And the consensus since then is that judges can not be removed for their decisions. They can only be removed for actual misbehavior, which by definition does not include making decisions congress doesn’t like. Judges since then have been removed for offenses such as taking bribes; that’s not a judicial decision.
How about removal for decisions that ignore Supreme Court precedent? It appears pretty clear that a President has authority to deport aliens he determines to be a danger to our Republic
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/the_supreme_court_has_long_held_that_the_alien_enemies_act_gives_the_president_plenary_power.html
They cannot be removed for their decisions. If a decision is wrong, it’s up to the higher courts to reverse it. If they need disciplining it’s up to the higher courts to bring them into line. Congress can only remove them for bad behavior, not because it doesn’t like how they’re doing their job. Otherwise say good bye to the entire concept of an independent judiciary, which is a foundation stone of our republic.
Read Roberts’s statement:
““For more than two centuries”, i.e. since the Chase impeachment.
“it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” No judge has ever been removed, and since Chase there has been no attempt to remove one, for his judicial decisions. All removals have been for other things, such as bribery.
So why can’t be the start now?
Because it’s wrong and contrary to judicial independence, which is a fundamental principle of the constitution. If Congress were to try to remove a judge for making a decision it disagrees with, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Supreme Court would strike the removal down and instruct the judge to continue to report for work as usual, on the grounds that a decision cannot constitute “bad behavior”.
So you think that the Supreme Court would have stepped in if Trump was found guilty post impeachment too? That was far from the intent too. As offended as I was by that abuse by the Democrats, if the courts ever do that, it would end our current government.
When a judge assumes powers that he does not have under our Constitution, does that not qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor?
Separation of powers is the issue here not judicial independence. Neither the Legislative Branch nor Executive Branch ordered the judge to rule a certain way.
A judge has no authority over to order an airplane to return that does not have the fuel to be able to return,
I give you the late lamented Alcee Lamar Hastings. One of the brothers nominated by Jimma Carter to a district court judgeship only to be impeached and removed for bribery only to be elected to join his peers in the House of Representatives where he fit right in.
Exactly. He was not removed for making bad decisions. He was removed for taking bribes. Taking bribes is not in any way part of the judicial function. Just as a president has no immunity for taking bribes, nor does a judge.
(By the way, at his trial the jury acquitted him. So as far as the law is concerned he was innocent. But Congress was not bound by that acquittal, and his removal stands. But impeached officers are still eligible for elected office.)
Roberts is technically correct, but the issue is not letting the appellate process run its course, but rather HOW LONG it takes for the appellate process to run its course. The Left’s strategy is to run out the clock on all these assaults on constitutional executive authority until the electorate comes to its senses and puts them back in power.
Hmm. Maybe it’s time to revive that proposal to pack the SCOTUS–now that our side is in control.
We’d be bad at it. Last time we had a chance, we let in Barrett, an awful mistake.
Barrett clearly worships Roberts.
Correction – Trump let in Barrett, one of most serious of several personnel mistakes he made in his first term. He has been much better this time.
Get a load of this guy with his pedo smile.
I am quite certain Kavanaugh, BArret, Gorsuch and personally detest Trump. And they are quite aware of his moronic statements establishing himself as a quasi -dictator. ( MSNBC and CNN should be illegal….Biden pardons should be revoked….Biden weaponized the DOJ).
3 frauds, sexual assault, libel, 34 felony convictions, 3 more felony indictments with a mountain of credible evidence fo a conviction. Couldn’t get a job ANYWHERE but he’s President .A national embarassment. This is the bizarro world we are living in.
Thaty said, they usually put their animus aside and vote according to their interpretation of the law.
Whine all you like, sh*tlib, but he’s still your President, just as Biden was mine.
On another note, what are you doing here, don’t you have some Tesla owners to terrorize?
Since when did being president mean you were immune to criticism.
Oh and Tesla owners are selling selling selling, its bud light on steroids. FAFO
Sh*tlibs loved Elon when he was a lib, but now that he’s not he must be excommunicated by the Church of Woke. Virtue signaling knows no bounds.
So you condone arson and vandalism. Typical shitlib.
Great – let idiot liberals take a huge loss on their Tesla. At least it means they have given up on their global warming scam when they buy their shiny new Tahoe
Trump is not our president, and neither was Biden. Trump is and Biden was president of the united states. None of us here is a state, so they are/were not our president. Nor are/were they our commander in chief, unless we are in the military forces.
You keep saying this but, it’s total nonsense Milhouse. What state does he control or preside over? None. He presides over the United States government. The national government of our country. It is our government, unless you are not an American, and he is our President.
The united states is exactly that: a corporate entity consisting of the 50 states. That is the entity he is president of. He is not president of anything or anyone else. If you are not a state, he is not your president.
Remember that “united states” in the constitution is a plural, not a singular. The united states are, not is. For instance, “and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them”. That sentence doesn’t work if “the united states” is in the singular.
As hot takes go this is really, really bad, apart from the fact it doesn’t address the issues in contention at all. Its straightforwardly the case that the Trump administration tried using a law that DID NOT APPLY. Its well within the authority of a court to say the gov wilfully misused the law.
Really? How does the law not apply? In what way do the Tren de Aragua’s actions differ from a “predatory incursion”?
Below is a good education to remedy your ignorance. I doubt you want to learn though.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/the_supreme_court_has_long_held_that_the_alien_enemies_act_gives_the_president_plenary_power.html
I’m not holding my breath that he will.
The simple answer is for the administration to ignore the courts orders they believe are illegal citing the wide span of the orders. Let the courts decide how much power a district court has beyond its boundaries
Why should anyone expect Roberts to do his job? He didn’t do his job as overseer of the FISA court. Heck, one of the rogue judges, Boasberg, was appointed by Roberts to supervise FISA reforms (yeah, right). They’re buddies.
Amen to your comments about the judiciary and particularly SCOTUS. Judge Robert’s has been a terrible disappointment, When it appears a slam dunk he supports the leftists, The Judiciary in this country has no moral compass anymore. It’s got so many hard left judges who think they’re Gods. Roberts and Barrett appear to be more left leaning than originally thought. Perhaps, Supreme Court Judges should be appointed for a period of time after which, they leave the bench. At least then, there is an end to the poor decisions of those who seem to want to destroy America. I just don’t know why some feel it’s okay for judges to spend billions of tax dollars just on their say so.
this court wouldnt intervene when it was clear that PA violated their own laws in 2020 federal elections
they allowed people to not have to pay their rents etc etc
acb is a proven lefty sympathizer as is roberts
Roberts’ statement is all about creating or preserving the “legacy” of the so-called Roberts’ Court. Too many of his decisions represent that, rather than the correct application of law to justiciable disputes
Remember DACA? That’s the plan. 10 million illegals will all be entitled to hearings fo some kind. Trump’s only removed 75,000. They are not leaving in any significant way.
The demonrats seem sure that no matter what they do the people will do nothing to stop their power grab. It’s very similar to the attitude that the French aristocrats had just before the french revolution, and the real history book tell you how that worked out. Judges that threaten the lives and children of America by allowing illegal murderers, pedophiles, and sicko’s in general may want to consider that when children are involved things could go sideways at any time. Just something the leftist pinheads may want to really think about in those high population areas in ‘blue states. Me, I could care less, I’m in the country far away from any big cities.
Roberts kind of reminds me of John McCain. Someone who wants to be one of the Kool Kids, getting good press and getting invited to the best parties.
Dear Chief Justice. I ask you then why is there an impeachment process for judges? Because they have been and will be in the future crooked as hell.
The impeachment process for judges is for their behavior, not for their decisions. No judge has ever been removed from the bench for a decision he made, because Congress has long recognized that it lacks the authority to do that. When the House improvidently impeached Samuel Chase, the senate acquitted him for precisely that reason.
If the Courts did a better job of policing their members, there would be a lot less talk of impeachment.
Leave a Comment