|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Judge James Boasberg issued an oral order demanding that planes carrying Venezuelan gang members, who were not even a party to the lawsuit before him and over which he did not have jurisdiction, be turned around in international airspace. Boasberg is now infuriated that his mere utterance, not even set down in writing, was not immediately obeyed.
Democrats and their media have taken to crying that any disobedience of Boasberg, who was appointed by Barack Obama to apparently rule not only the entire country, but the planet and all its airspace, is a “threat to democracy” and a violation of checks and balances.
It’s not. If anything, it’s an urgently needed restoration of those checks and balances which have been trampled on by judges who have seized unlimited power from elected officials like Trump.
Boasberg’s coup began when the D.C. judge decided to hear a lawsuit from the ACLU based on the detention of four inmates in Texas and one in New York. Despite it being the entirely wrong venue, Boasberg took the case. The 5 inmates who were on average 1,500 miles away from Boasberg denied that they were members of the Tren de Aragua gang targeted by Trump. Despite that, they claimed they were at risk of deportation because Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act and demanded that Boasberg block a 200-year-old plus law that predates D.C.
The lack of minor matters like venue and standing didn’t stop Boasberg from blocking the implementation of a law that predates the White House, the Capitol and the entire principle of ‘judicial review’ that only came 5 years later in Marbury v. Madison before issuing an oral order turning around planes in midair. King George III would have been less presumptuous.
There’s a term for this that ends in a ‘y’ and it’s not ‘democracy’.
President Trump is not defying ‘checks and balances’ when he pushes back against a D.C. judge declaring that his word is law around the country and the world, he’s implementing them. A judiciary unbound by laws, by the limitations of venue and standing, where judges pick and choose precedents and then go with their feelings is unchecked and unbalanced tyranny.
And it’s the farthest thing from what the Founders and the Framers had in mind for America.
Boasberg may be one of the worst examples of a judicial insurrection in which Democrat judges collude with allied political organizations to seize power and impose their will on everything. In recent weeks, Democrat federal judges have seized the power to manage every contractual detail of federal appropriations, the perpetuation of federal agencies only brought into being by presidential fiat, and mandated the presence of mentally ill crossdressers in the military.
Boasberg’s attack on the Alien Enemies Act not only uses the principle of judicial review to block a law that predates the very concept of judicial review, but is a direct assault on the Constitution.
Judicial review does not exist in the Constitution. The Constitution created the Supreme Court and allowed for the creation of “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, actually rolled back a previous judicial expansion of power as a violation of the Constitution.
“By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote. “In cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear, that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.”
Who exactly then is violating these checks and balances? President Trump or Judge Boasberg?
Does the president have a right to declare a Venezuelan gang as enemies and deport its members, who are not legally citizens of this country, in keeping with a law four times older than the now discredited Roe v. Wade, three times older than the origins of the pro-crime Miranda warning, and older even than judicial review? Or does a D.C. judge have the right to declare, on behalf of parties who were not at issue and not even in his jurisdiction, that he may not?
Can a federal judge demand that planes outside the U.S. turn around at the sound of his voice?
Constitutionally, Congress makes laws, presidents implement them and judges hear claims by individuals whose rights were violated by them. Nothing entitled Judge Boasberg to declare potential deportees a ‘class’ based on a lawsuit by foreign non-deportees who were not even in his jurisdiction and then give orders to planes to turn around to bring back gang members who were not even a legitimate party to the lawsuit by a leftist advocacy group. The ACLU’s argument that the Tren de Aragua gang does not qualify as a foreign enemy and Boasberg’s willingness to go along with that argument is entirely a matter of opinion and one left to presidential discretion. Neither Judge Boasberg nor the ACLU have presidential powers.
Federal judges do not get to decide which groups the president can declare are invading the United States. Such matters are the very definition of constitutional presidential discretion. An unbalanced judge who tries to seize the warmaking powers of the presidency is engaged in a coup and Boasberg is just the latest such judicial coupster since the aftermath of 9/11.
The White House’s rejection of judicial authority upholds checks and balances. It’s an impeachable offense and a violation of the constitutional role of the judiciary.
Disobedience to the rule of judges who issue such rulings is obedience to the Constitution.
Imperialists Judges who violate the U.S. Constitution and overturn the will of t he Voters should be totally removed from the Bench and retired to Prison
This judge did not pay attention in law school.
Unless and until an Order is entered upon the Court’s Docket, it has no force or effect.
The Supreme Court is the only court placed at the same level as the President, per the Constitution. Article 3 of the Constitution does not give the lower courts power to interrupt or void a Presidential decision on anything, because first, there is no specific language or clause stating so, plus the absence of such by default means that such authority is not there. This so-called judge is acting entirely outside of Constitutional authority. President Trump should emphatically state all this to the press and announce he will continue deportations accordingly, and ask Chuck Schumer and the House Minority Leader directly and blatantly “And what are you going to do about it?”
Greenfield characterized the sorry spectacle of Democ-rat lawfare: “A judiciary unbound by laws, by the limitations of venue and standing, where judges pick and choose precedents and then go with their feelings is unchecked and unbalanced tyranny.” Fortunately, such navel-gazing fanaticism shows Democ-rat weakness, not strength. As they say in the East, “The dogs bark and the caravan moves along.”
Boasberg is a rogue judge issuing absurd, abusive, and illegal rulings. He should be impeached.
Tried for treason. We k ow what the penalty for that is…
Reading a defense of the Israeli Supreme Court the other day woke me up to the fact that judiciaries have been corrupt since Ancient Rome and probably earlier.
The highest court in Israel a the time, and the highest Roman judge then present in occupied Israel worked as a team to “convict” and execute the most innocent MAN who ever lived. Those two became best friends after His death.
So yes, judicial corruption goes WAY back.
Impeachment of a Federal Judge is unfortunately, impossible. We simply don’t have the Congressional votes for that, let alone conviction. HOWEVER, these rotten judges can be easily removed by Congress by simply voting to eliminate their District Court! No Court, No Bench, No Judge!
They can run around in their black robes on Halloween scaring little children!
The question arises, “Was the White House properly served?”
Leaving aside questions about it being after regular business hours and if DHS should be served, etc.
I doubt the DEMOcrat hacks in black even consider that as necessary – THEY HAVE SPOKEN!!
I do wish PRESIDENT TRUMP would tell boasberg to READ Our CONSTITUTION and show him the part where a pissant judge is Superior to the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!! It’s not there and, SPECIFICALLY, in the Alien Enemies Act there is a Provision that it IS NOT SUBJECT to JUDICIAL REVIEW! The “emperor hack in black has no clothes”!!
I fault the SUPREME COURT for allowing this to continue. It’s almost as if the leftist justices WANT an issue to result in ANOTHER bogus Impeachment! I certainly hope that something is exposed that causes Roberts to resign. Still can’t figure what’s up Barrett’s butt – thought she would be a reliable CONSERVATIVE justice!
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP gets an opening he should nominate Senator Cruz! I know they’ve had issues in the first race, but Senator Cruz would be the ONE that could drive the USA BACK to being a CONSTITUTIONAL Nation!
Moot.
BozoBerg has/had no jurisdiction over the matter. Outside his bailiwick.
And that does not even get near the matter of the aircraft in question being over international airspace. . He’s got as much say over that as I do. And I know I don’t have any.
I guess that makes ME smarter than HE is.
A judge from Frostbite Falls has a Judicial district. His rulings should only apply within it.
These Judicial power hungry munchins should be ignored by the executive branch.
Laws only exist through intimidation, no force no law.
A GOP controlled Congress can and should pass a law abolishing the power of a district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction
Either Chief Justice Roberts or Congress had better start reigning in their boys and girls in the district courts before they begin telling them which way “the cow eats the cabbage.”
If judicial review doesn’t exist in the Constitution, then the remedy against the President on a claim that he has exceeded his Constitutional and legal powers can proceed by way of an ordinary action.
In my country the UK, we have judicial review. But you can’t go to court in judicial review as of right – you have to apply to the court for permission, which is discretionary. Even if you win your case, the grant of a remedy is again discretionary.
The problem with the West’s classical heritage is that we have our own equivalent of Iran’s “austere religious scholars”, usually judges or physicians, and their presumed dedication to the pursuit of knowledge confers an almost untouchable status on them – something which in fact sits ill with democracy. In effect, expertise becomes an idol, something that may have been a contributing factor to the gaps in Israel’s vigilance on 10/7 – the young female soldiers on the ground who were reporting unusual activity were overruled by their superiors – who may have been hierarchically superior but arguably weren’t in other respects.
It is Judge Boasberg who makes a mockery of the Separation of Powers.
Judges think they are God, and what they declare supersedes anything or anybody else. I believe they can be financially compromised. Check their bank accounts for recent, large deposits ! Judges USED to be non-political.
the system is broken when a two bit judge can tell the president what he can or cant do . they will obstruct all the way to the end of the dons second run . no point of having a president when these low lifes can thwart the will of the citizens and get away with it . the left have owned the u.s. for too long and now it is too late to change course try as the don might he is losing a battle to derail their plans for the destruction of the u.s.
However you prefer to call it, it is a:
Judicial tyranny
Judicial insurrection
Judicial supremacy
Judicial interference
It is still an abrogation of the Constitution and the separation of powers. The positions of these judges absolutely need to be eradicated once and for all.