The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is normally very reserved in making statements about public matters, and especially not about matters that could end up before the SCOTUS.
There's quite a bit going on with The United States Institute of Peace. If you do a search, you can read the depositions of Colin O'Brien and George Foote.
I guess if you stomp your feet hard enough and insist you're not an executive-branch agency, you can hold off the POTUS. Except this is not your father's Republican president. This new president is kicking butt and talking names.
Beryl Howell declined to grant a TRO but she did grandstand about how offended she is that the President is acting like a Democrat and actually employing his Article II power.
All power resides with the legislative branch; a super majority in the house and senate can remove the other two branches. It can defund the government, impeach POTUS, SCOTUS and "fire" anyone else who gets in its way. The only restriction on the power of congress is 1)lack of super majority, and 2) the 2d ammendment. there was a 3d check on the power of congress, but Lincoln destroyed that when he destroyed states rights.
No offence meant, but this all sounds like a genteel back-and-forth from a legal debate club way back when life was normal. The issue is brutally simple: will Roberts and Scotus do their duty to the Constitution, the nation and the Executive and put these activist judges in their place or not? Not only does Trump's whole domestic programme hang on the answer, but so does the future of America as a viable nation based on the rule of law. If Roberts flubs this one, not only will this mean that the legal system will join the ever-lengthening list of public institutions viewed with complete contempt and derision by most Americans, but even worse, that any genuine last-ditch attempts to reform the existing system will have failed. Then we are in a whole different world. I really have no idea how this one is going to go.
Should SCOTUS fail, it won't be the first time: "Dred Scott" decision (1854) led directly to the Civil War; that decision, "essentially, once a slave always a slave, no matter where" drove a stake in the heart of federalism (state's rights) and the Civil War finished it off. Trump needs to follow Jackson. Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
Another way to think of Roberts words: as shots against the Judiciary, rather than just those outside. The assumption is that Roberts just defends by pointing outside, but he may be pointing inside as well: overstepping will bring unknown consequences to the court system.
The Court has no self defense or enforcement powers as such. Others have to do it, particularly the Executive, and there is mixed history on that, as Roberts well knows.
Opinion is the mover of all things, as Lincoln well understood. Thus Trump’s use and Robert’s “defense.” Roberts is in the odd position of the Court, for perhaps the first time at least in recent memory, not being viewed as non political or impartial. This is what happens with cases going before the lower courts first. By its very nature it’s political in its participation.
What is not adequately talked about is “who decides.” Roberts also well knows that the Courts are not the final word on anything. That all the other parts of the republic have a role and say, including the Executive. All three branches are allowed, and were intended, to have their views on interpretation. That is politics. The Executive branch, through his appointees, are allowed to interpret and to act on those interpretations, as we have seen with prior administrations.
Who has jurisdiction? Good point. Judges often fail to recognize where the line is and think everything is open to them, particularly if there are actors willing to carry their water and take on the political cost.
Consequences. Roberts is saying the normal consequences are a judge getting overturned on appeal. This keeps the peace so to speak. But we live in a new paradigm, and the question will become: what are the proper consequences for judges? Roberts wants to be in front on this, but it is likely too late and changes are coming, as the Judiciary is not really self perpetuating.
Here's a good article that I think many readers will enjoy and find enlightening on the checks and balances angle. I'll only quote the beginning and end of the most relevant part, but there's red meat in there for Roberts haters, too. It's all politics. The Judiciary is part of the political process in the big picture sense. But Trump has the strong hand here, as the author explains.
**These [prog] judges may not realize this has already gotten to the point where it is playing into Trump’s hands. But John Roberts does.**
**Roberts is not interested in saving Trump. But he is interested in saving his power – the power of the Supreme Court. And these lower court liberal judges are putting that at risk.** As soon as Trump is given an order that the population backs him in defying, let alone pursuing impeachment over, what’s to stop him from taking the same tack against the Supreme Court?
...
That’s why Roberts’ brief statement references the “appellate process.” **"Calm down, Mr. President," he’s saying, "I’ll rule for you if you’re patient."**
**Roberts is trying to project strength. But this statement shows weakness. He felt forced to put this out because he realizes not just Trump but the American people are getting impatient.**
The American people don’t read 60-page opinions from federal trial court judges in far-off jurisdictions who went to far-off schools to learn how to write such opinions.
These decisions coming down one after the other create information overload. And makes it easy for Trump to build his narrative. They’re after him no matter what. He is trying to make America great; they are the Deep State.
Roberts knows he and his liberal judge colleagues could lose the narrative. Fast.
They’ve already lost the narrative. Both sides now view the judicial branch as illegitimate. Chuckie Schumer railed and threatened the high court, Biden ignored judicial rulings against his student loan forgiveness, and now the other side is ready to ignore Roberts and his lower courts. All sides of the populace look to the judiciary as irrelevant. What exactly is the consequence to defying the rulings many now think. Many Americans are now to point of an F it attitude. May not be right, and it may be wrong, but it is what it is. We the people are silently fuming below the surface. It’s bubbling.
Frustration only justifies blowing off steam, particularly where the Admin is generally winning at the next level.
Yes, the judges imposing the TROs are reflecting their partisanship.
But we set ourselves on this course when nominating and confirming clear partisans at the trial court level became the name of the game in judicial confirmations. The GOP started this -- justifiably so in my view -- with the influence of the Federalist Society's involvement in the process beginning with the Bush Admin.
The Obama Admin and Biden Admin followed suit, with the Biden Admin going "All-In" on DEI criteria which insured that the most extreme wings of the Dem progressive coalition would all have oversized representation at the trial court level.
What we are seeing from these activist judges is their partisanship leading them to engineer outcomes that suit their political world views.
It is quite likely the various circuit courts of appeal are going to unwind most of these lower court decisions -- and I think most of these district judges actually recognize this. In that regard, what they are doing is lawless performance art but it advances the narrative that the Trump Admin is acting in a lawless capacity.
We can look back at many of the confirmation proceedings of some of these nominees, and also look at their backgrounds before they were nominated -- many are manifestly unsuited for their positions. But they "checked the boxes" for the DEI priorities that drove the decision-making.
I might tentatively disagree with this in that many of the Federalist Society judges were more *ideological* than partisan, per se. That ideological bent did coincide with a certain wing of the GOP. But this is the reality of America, in which there is very little real conservatism any longer.
He gets it wrong right at the start. Trump wasn't impeached by the courts. Roberts is looking out for the judiciary. He knows better than to get in between the two heavy weights, the Executive and Congress.
They aren't exempt. They can be impeached for bad behavior. I'm quite sure more resign under that threat than are actually impeached, and it's all hushed up.
Let me reformulate that. "A formal and effective process to POLICE federal judges is badly needed." My understanding of this process, subject to correction, is that the policing is mostly an insider thing--almost self policing, and nobody wants to be pointing fingers in the closed club.
The rest makes sense--and I pointed to the same reality when in another post I stated that most of these judges are "documentably" partisan. But check out Article III. Roberts has essentially zero power over judges. He's trying to foster unity of outlook, which is about all he can do.
Is Roberts trying to protect the Law? The constitution? Or The Institution? I believe it’s the latter. And that, to many of us, is the problem. Even if many of us can’t articulate it in fancy well written words and language. I currently work in a totally unrelated industry and type of work. But it’s very similar in this respect. The process and the system becomes more important that the outcome, or in my case the product and system we are building for the supposed customer.
Roberts is trying to finesse this problem by diminishing it into a squabble about process, but the hard reality is that some of this judicial overreach is imminently harmful. For example, if that District Court judge had succeeded in blocking the removal of those illegal aliens (who were factually criminal refugees from their home countries) and they later committed serious crimes while in within our borders, then that "imminent harm" would be tangibly be a result of the judge's decision. Could a District Judge legally order a military commander to stand down during battle based upon some contrived judicial opinion? I think not. This is a slippery slope that Robert's refuses to take seriously.
Impeachment is also impractical, in that it requires a 2/3 majority vote. Our present congress will not split this way on partisan issues, no matter how much noise either side makes.
Now we find out from some quick investigators (before social media is removed) that many of these judges have all their relatives siphoning off taxpayer money from USAID! No wonder they're issuing these stop orders. Where can I apply to become a grifter?
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."
So why isn't, for example, Marco Rubio a minister for purposes of original jurisdiction when Trump Admistration is sued over USAID dismissals?
If Roberts does not like for controversy between the branches to play out in the media, then he would have been wise to keep his comment on impeaching judges to himself. He only served to add more fuel to a fire that is growing larger with each unelected federal judge issuing TROs and injunctions based not on law but ideology. Perhaps Roberts should address 'judge shopping' in his spare time. Boasberg inserting himself into the deportation of illegal gang members based on the Alien Enemies Act - an act which is supposed to be off limits from second guessing by the judiciary - is a perfect example of judicial overreach. Then there is the federal judge who is trying to keep the mentally ill in the military. Why should the executive play nice with these inferior courts?
Cos: I feel the exact same way, the old adage applies, “silence is golden”, I would think that it goes double for the CJ. I think he’s playing a very dangerous game and I don’t see it ending well for the country.
I read Don Surber once in a while and he had a good article on this subject this morning and he made some very good points. A lot of hypocrisy. Roberts and the Dems along with their disturbed progressive base are impervious to shame and sanity.
There's quite a bit going on with The United States Institute of Peace. If you do a search, you can read the depositions of Colin O'Brien and George Foote.
I guess if you stomp your feet hard enough and insist you're not an executive-branch agency, you can hold off the POTUS. Except this is not your father's Republican president. This new president is kicking butt and talking names.
Beryl Howell declined to grant a TRO but she did grandstand about how offended she is that the President is acting like a Democrat and actually employing his Article II power.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/obama-judge-denies-tro-block-doge-taking-institute/
I wonder whether the grandstanding that some of these judges are indulging in could be used in future to force them to recuse.
They really are DEI hires.
I try, as I age, to be more charitable and avoid ad hominem comments. Unfortunately, I think my comment is true.
Speaking of DEI ...
https://x.com/DougAMacgregor/status/1902836514461008298
Mac is right on target.
I'm largely in agreement with Mr. Wauck.
I didn't support the Affordable Care Act, but Obama ran on it and won, just as Trump ran on cutting government, immigration and tariffs, and won.
Why have elections if the status quo is baked in and judges can shut down everything?
The Roberts Court isn't perfect, but they're doing an overall good job.
All power resides with the legislative branch; a super majority in the house and senate can remove the other two branches. It can defund the government, impeach POTUS, SCOTUS and "fire" anyone else who gets in its way. The only restriction on the power of congress is 1)lack of super majority, and 2) the 2d ammendment. there was a 3d check on the power of congress, but Lincoln destroyed that when he destroyed states rights.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1902093186601783703.html
Interesting thread on Judge John McConnell...ties to a group that would receive millions after his ruling.
No offence meant, but this all sounds like a genteel back-and-forth from a legal debate club way back when life was normal. The issue is brutally simple: will Roberts and Scotus do their duty to the Constitution, the nation and the Executive and put these activist judges in their place or not? Not only does Trump's whole domestic programme hang on the answer, but so does the future of America as a viable nation based on the rule of law. If Roberts flubs this one, not only will this mean that the legal system will join the ever-lengthening list of public institutions viewed with complete contempt and derision by most Americans, but even worse, that any genuine last-ditch attempts to reform the existing system will have failed. Then we are in a whole different world. I really have no idea how this one is going to go.
Should SCOTUS fail, it won't be the first time: "Dred Scott" decision (1854) led directly to the Civil War; that decision, "essentially, once a slave always a slave, no matter where" drove a stake in the heart of federalism (state's rights) and the Civil War finished it off. Trump needs to follow Jackson. Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
Well done Mark.
Another way to think of Roberts words: as shots against the Judiciary, rather than just those outside. The assumption is that Roberts just defends by pointing outside, but he may be pointing inside as well: overstepping will bring unknown consequences to the court system.
The Court has no self defense or enforcement powers as such. Others have to do it, particularly the Executive, and there is mixed history on that, as Roberts well knows.
Opinion is the mover of all things, as Lincoln well understood. Thus Trump’s use and Robert’s “defense.” Roberts is in the odd position of the Court, for perhaps the first time at least in recent memory, not being viewed as non political or impartial. This is what happens with cases going before the lower courts first. By its very nature it’s political in its participation.
What is not adequately talked about is “who decides.” Roberts also well knows that the Courts are not the final word on anything. That all the other parts of the republic have a role and say, including the Executive. All three branches are allowed, and were intended, to have their views on interpretation. That is politics. The Executive branch, through his appointees, are allowed to interpret and to act on those interpretations, as we have seen with prior administrations.
Who has jurisdiction? Good point. Judges often fail to recognize where the line is and think everything is open to them, particularly if there are actors willing to carry their water and take on the political cost.
Consequences. Roberts is saying the normal consequences are a judge getting overturned on appeal. This keeps the peace so to speak. But we live in a new paradigm, and the question will become: what are the proper consequences for judges? Roberts wants to be in front on this, but it is likely too late and changes are coming, as the Judiciary is not really self perpetuating.
Here's a good article that I think many readers will enjoy and find enlightening on the checks and balances angle. I'll only quote the beginning and end of the most relevant part, but there's red meat in there for Roberts haters, too. It's all politics. The Judiciary is part of the political process in the big picture sense. But Trump has the strong hand here, as the author explains.
https://redstate.com/eric-neff/2025/03/19/the-politics-of-john-roberts-n2186829
**These [prog] judges may not realize this has already gotten to the point where it is playing into Trump’s hands. But John Roberts does.**
**Roberts is not interested in saving Trump. But he is interested in saving his power – the power of the Supreme Court. And these lower court liberal judges are putting that at risk.** As soon as Trump is given an order that the population backs him in defying, let alone pursuing impeachment over, what’s to stop him from taking the same tack against the Supreme Court?
...
That’s why Roberts’ brief statement references the “appellate process.” **"Calm down, Mr. President," he’s saying, "I’ll rule for you if you’re patient."**
**Roberts is trying to project strength. But this statement shows weakness. He felt forced to put this out because he realizes not just Trump but the American people are getting impatient.**
The American people don’t read 60-page opinions from federal trial court judges in far-off jurisdictions who went to far-off schools to learn how to write such opinions.
These decisions coming down one after the other create information overload. And makes it easy for Trump to build his narrative. They’re after him no matter what. He is trying to make America great; they are the Deep State.
Roberts knows he and his liberal judge colleagues could lose the narrative. Fast.
They’ve already lost the narrative. Both sides now view the judicial branch as illegitimate. Chuckie Schumer railed and threatened the high court, Biden ignored judicial rulings against his student loan forgiveness, and now the other side is ready to ignore Roberts and his lower courts. All sides of the populace look to the judiciary as irrelevant. What exactly is the consequence to defying the rulings many now think. Many Americans are now to point of an F it attitude. May not be right, and it may be wrong, but it is what it is. We the people are silently fuming below the surface. It’s bubbling.
The U.S. is simply unfixable.
Trump, God help us, is probably the last chance to fix the current system or at least make it viable for a bit longer. Après him, le deluge.
A new tweet from SWC:
Frustration only justifies blowing off steam, particularly where the Admin is generally winning at the next level.
Yes, the judges imposing the TROs are reflecting their partisanship.
But we set ourselves on this course when nominating and confirming clear partisans at the trial court level became the name of the game in judicial confirmations. The GOP started this -- justifiably so in my view -- with the influence of the Federalist Society's involvement in the process beginning with the Bush Admin.
The Obama Admin and Biden Admin followed suit, with the Biden Admin going "All-In" on DEI criteria which insured that the most extreme wings of the Dem progressive coalition would all have oversized representation at the trial court level.
What we are seeing from these activist judges is their partisanship leading them to engineer outcomes that suit their political world views.
It is quite likely the various circuit courts of appeal are going to unwind most of these lower court decisions -- and I think most of these district judges actually recognize this. In that regard, what they are doing is lawless performance art but it advances the narrative that the Trump Admin is acting in a lawless capacity.
We can look back at many of the confirmation proceedings of some of these nominees, and also look at their backgrounds before they were nominated -- many are manifestly unsuited for their positions. But they "checked the boxes" for the DEI priorities that drove the decision-making.
I might tentatively disagree with this in that many of the Federalist Society judges were more *ideological* than partisan, per se. That ideological bent did coincide with a certain wing of the GOP. But this is the reality of America, in which there is very little real conservatism any longer.
Denninger touched on the issue at hand today: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker-Nad
He gets it wrong right at the start. Trump wasn't impeached by the courts. Roberts is looking out for the judiciary. He knows better than to get in between the two heavy weights, the Executive and Congress.
Why are federal judges seemingly exempt from disciplinary actions when they fail to recuse as required? Good behavior, NOT REALLY!
They aren't exempt. They can be impeached for bad behavior. I'm quite sure more resign under that threat than are actually impeached, and it's all hushed up.
A formal process to discipline federal judges is badly needed.
Let me reformulate that. "A formal and effective process to POLICE federal judges is badly needed." My understanding of this process, subject to correction, is that the policing is mostly an insider thing--almost self policing, and nobody wants to be pointing fingers in the closed club.
A job for the bar, one can't be a judge while license to practice law is suspended, this could work?
Unfortunately the bar is badly biased and has been weoponized.
The rest makes sense--and I pointed to the same reality when in another post I stated that most of these judges are "documentably" partisan. But check out Article III. Roberts has essentially zero power over judges. He's trying to foster unity of outlook, which is about all he can do.
Is Roberts trying to protect the Law? The constitution? Or The Institution? I believe it’s the latter. And that, to many of us, is the problem. Even if many of us can’t articulate it in fancy well written words and language. I currently work in a totally unrelated industry and type of work. But it’s very similar in this respect. The process and the system becomes more important that the outcome, or in my case the product and system we are building for the supposed customer.
Roberts is trying to finesse this problem by diminishing it into a squabble about process, but the hard reality is that some of this judicial overreach is imminently harmful. For example, if that District Court judge had succeeded in blocking the removal of those illegal aliens (who were factually criminal refugees from their home countries) and they later committed serious crimes while in within our borders, then that "imminent harm" would be tangibly be a result of the judge's decision. Could a District Judge legally order a military commander to stand down during battle based upon some contrived judicial opinion? I think not. This is a slippery slope that Robert's refuses to take seriously.
Impeachment is also impractical, in that it requires a 2/3 majority vote. Our present congress will not split this way on partisan issues, no matter how much noise either side makes.
The process is the punishment
Now we find out from some quick investigators (before social media is removed) that many of these judges have all their relatives siphoning off taxpayer money from USAID! No wonder they're issuing these stop orders. Where can I apply to become a grifter?
Easy. Apply to your relative who's a federal judge.
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."
So why isn't, for example, Marco Rubio a minister for purposes of original jurisdiction when Trump Admistration is sued over USAID dismissals?
28 U.S. Code § 1251 - Original jurisdiction
The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls ***of foreign states*** are parties;
If Roberts does not like for controversy between the branches to play out in the media, then he would have been wise to keep his comment on impeaching judges to himself. He only served to add more fuel to a fire that is growing larger with each unelected federal judge issuing TROs and injunctions based not on law but ideology. Perhaps Roberts should address 'judge shopping' in his spare time. Boasberg inserting himself into the deportation of illegal gang members based on the Alien Enemies Act - an act which is supposed to be off limits from second guessing by the judiciary - is a perfect example of judicial overreach. Then there is the federal judge who is trying to keep the mentally ill in the military. Why should the executive play nice with these inferior courts?
Yes, he should have. Screaming headline in local newspaper, "Roberts rebukes Trump"
Cos: I feel the exact same way, the old adage applies, “silence is golden”, I would think that it goes double for the CJ. I think he’s playing a very dangerous game and I don’t see it ending well for the country.
I read Don Surber once in a while and he had a good article on this subject this morning and he made some very good points. A lot of hypocrisy. Roberts and the Dems along with their disturbed progressive base are impervious to shame and sanity.