Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 05/25/2025 View Sat 05/24/2025 View Fri 05/23/2025 View Thu 05/22/2025 View Wed 05/21/2025 View Tue 05/20/2025 View Mon 05/19/2025
2025-03-26 Home Front: Politix
Mike Johnson issues chilling new threat to anti-Trump judges nationwide
[DM] Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has delivered a pointed warning to judges nationwide as local courts have slowed the rollout of Donald Trump's political agenda.

'We do have authority over the federal courts,' Johnson shared at a press conference Tuesday. 'We can eliminate an entire district court,' he noted.

'We do have power over funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.'

His statement appeared to be a veiled reminder, if not threat, that Congress has their eyes on district judges that have issued injunctions and rulings against Trump's policies.

Though the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the country, district courts, which have been issuing nationwide rulings foiling White House executive decisions, are overseen by Congress.

The White House has been frustrated with injunctions impeding Trump's immigration, DOGE and other top priorities, prompting the 78-year-old to call for judges standing in his way to get removed.

The president has called for D.C. district court judge James Boasberg to be impeached for issuing an injunction on the administration's deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump has also railed against district judge John James McConnell Jr. after he sided with 22 states and the District of Columbia to reinstate the flow of federal grants and loans that the White House froze as DOGE sifted through spending.

Republican lawmakers have already introduced articles of impeachment against McConnell and another Maryland based district judge, Theodore Chuang, who recently ruled that dismantling USAID is unconstitutional.

However, impeachment is unlikely as the maneuver would require Democratic support.
The 2/3rds to win requirement makes Senator Chuck Schumer very happy. Find another way.
Though the speaker later clarified that he was not planning on destroying any court, he did say he wanted to remind people of Congress's many authorities.

Article III of the Constitution states its up to Congress to 'ordain and establish' courts beneath the Supreme Court, meaning lawmakers fund and organize the lower court structure.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is currently looking into ways where Congress can reign in district judges.

Next week the committee is holding a hearing to examine Boasberg and other judge's recent rulings.

Jordan spoke with Trump about the upcoming hearing while the pair were watching the NCAA wrestling championships in Ohio over the weekend.

Eliminating lower courts and redistributing judges to other posts has been ordered by Congress before, but the practice is uncommon.
Judges playing nasty little games at the executive branch is unheard of, but here we are. Spank ‘em good, Mikey!
The issue may come to a head during the upcoming appropriations and government funding process, during which lawmakers may or may not push to defund or reorganize some lower courts.
Posted by Skidmark 2025-03-26 08:22|| || Front Page|| [11149 views ]  Top

#1 
Posted by DarthVader 2025-03-26 11:52||   2025-03-26 11:52|| Front Page Top

#2 Nuke option. Paying attention Justice Roberts?
FDR's 'Pack the Court' game in play, except instead of packing, send them packing.
Posted by Procopius2k 2025-03-26 11:54||   2025-03-26 11:54|| Front Page Top

#3 This headline stinks to high heavens. How about
"House speaker reminds USA that Congress has authority to regulate federal courts below the level of the US Supreme Court".
This is not a "nuke option" This is not impeachment. This is not a "chilling new threat". This may be "uncommon" but is no ways illegal. Abolition of the DC District Court actually happened in 1863 and it was no big deal at the time. Chief Justice Roberts recent BS pronouncement "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." was an inappropriate response to the spate of insane federal judicial decisions and the spinelessness of the Supremes. Congress and only Congress has the authority & responsibility to impeach federal judges. A Supreme Court justice has no standing on the issue of impeachment, except perhaps to preside over an impeachment trial. It will be interesting to read what crap Roberts will come up with in response to this CHILLING NEW THREAT /S.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2025-03-26 13:03||   2025-03-26 13:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Less talk, more action.
Posted by Grom the Affective 2025-03-26 14:20||   2025-03-26 14:20|| Front Page Top

#5 Not nearly chilling enough apparently.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2025-03-26 14:50||   2025-03-26 14:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Judges serve for LIFE.

If people are pushed hard enough, or get angry enough, they can do "unusual" things. People have been getting angrier and angrier for more than a decade now. That pressure requires an outlet. Civil war, rioting, open rebellion, are only a few of the choices that MIGHT be made. Someone needs to remind people to "stay in their own lane" or those choices WILL be made. That's human nature, as history records time and time again.
Posted by Old Patriot 2025-03-26 19:03||   2025-03-26 19:03|| Front Page Top

#7 "Judges serve for LIFE" Not in the following case:
William Matthew S. Merrick (1818-1899) was appointed federal associate justice of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia by President Franklin Pierce. Merrick served in that court until its abolition by act of Congress. On March 3, 1863, Congress abolished the federal Circuit Court, district court, and criminal court of the District of Columbia, and replaced them with the "Supreme Court of the District of Columbia". This resulted in the removal of judges from the bench (including Judge Merrick) who had ruled against the US in United States ex rel. Murphy v. Porter. Merrick returned to Maryland and resumed the practice of law. He lived another 36 years after losing his position on the abolished federal DC court. He was not impeached. He may have been a federal judge for life, but the court he served on had been legally abolished, so that his "service" for life had become moot.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2025-03-26 20:46||   2025-03-26 20:46|| Front Page Top

#8 A judge is appointed to a bench. Eliminate the bench itself and they are relegated to the good court. They don’t get to lateral move.
Posted by Super Hose 2025-03-26 21:28||   2025-03-26 21:28|| Front Page Top

19:49 Elmerert Hupens2660
19:33 Glenmore
19:11 Frank G
18:53 Regular joe
18:35 Regular joe
17:30 trailing wife
16:38 Rambler
15:59 Secret Master
15:42 Super Hose
15:37 Pancho Poodle8452
15:26 Pancho Poodle8452
13:48 NoMoreBS
13:37 NoMoreBS
13:18 Skidmark
13:12 Pancho Poodle8452
13:09 Skidmark
13:09 Clem+Elmish4239
13:08 Clem+Elmish4239
13:06 alanc
12:48 Besoeker
12:48 Besoeker
12:37 Frank G
12:35 SteveS
12:22 Grom the Affective









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com