By Appeasing Rogue Judges, Trump Legitimizes Leftists’ Judicial Coup

If the judicial branch won't adhere to the Constitution, then Trump must.

Dear Justice Sotomayor, Your Left-Wing Partisanship Is Showing

Did Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor forget that it’s generally frowned upon for judges to display their political partisanship? It’s a question worth asking given that the Obama appointee appeared to do just that in her recent public remarks. On Thursday night, Sotomayor attended an event hosted by the notoriously left-wing American Bar Association (ABA), […]

John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist The Founders Warned Us About

If courts can 'strike down' the other branches' actions, as Roberts claims, then that isn't 'co-equal.' It's judicial supremacism.

John Roberts’ Tacit Endorsement Of Judicial Supremacy Is Undermining SCOTUS

Roberts fails to understand that SCOTUS's continued allowance of leftists' judicial coup is undermining Americans' faith in the judiciary.

Trump’s enemies don’t campaign — they legislate from the bench



You’re watching nothing less than a judicial coup take place against Donald Trump’s administration and, by extension, the voters who supported him. To suppress a populist movement like those that won at the ballot box in 2016 and 2024, political operatives rely on institutions not directly accountable to the people.

During Trump’s first term, unelected intelligence officials, long-serving bureaucrats, and nanny-staters with decades-old security clearances became conduits for leaks between the special counsel’s office and the media.

Trump’s presidency is once again on the line. And here we are, stuck on the same ride. Anyone ready to get off?

When Attorney General Bill Barr moved to shut down the Russia collusion hoax, a new group stepped in. Unelected public health “experts” took the lead in shoving COVID-19 down our throats as the kept media amplified their every word.

Caving to that narrative ultimately led to Trump’s defeat in 2020. Now, another wave of unelected bureaucrats appear to be working to derail his triumphant second term — this time using a familiar line from the left: “The courts have spoken.”

For years, Republican leaders have largely accepted such proclamations without pushback. One example of this passive approach is the removal of prayer from public schools — a significant moment in the broader trend. But how did that happen?

It wasn’t the result of a policy from the Department of Education, which didn’t exist for another two decades. Instead, the shift began with the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Engel v. Vitale. The ruling applied what later became known as the Lemon test, which broadly interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment. According to the spirit of the age, that meant nearly any expression of religion not rooted in secularism faced constitutional challenges.

No American generation before ours would have signed off on these rulings at the ballot box. But once the courts handed them down, the public was expected to fall in line. In 1973, the Supreme Court delivered Roe v. Wade, effectively legalizing abortion nationwide — without a single vote cast by the people. It was a sweeping mandate, imposed from the bench.

In 1982, the court went farther. In Plyler v. Doe, justices declared that states must use taxpayer money to fund public education for children of illegal immigrants. Again, no vote, no debate — just a ruling.

Then came 2005. In Kelo v. New London, the court ruled that the government could seize private homes and farms, not for public roads or schools, but to hand over to private developers in the name of “economic development.” Would voters have approved that kind of land-grab? Of course not. That’s why the court stepped in and did it for them.

For decades, the courts laid the groundwork. Then came the breaking point: same-sex marriage. In United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court overruled the will of tens of millions of voters. I was involved in those battles before Windsor — and I remember them clearly. We won 31 consecutive state referendums defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California alone, over 8 million voters backed biblical marriage — on the same day Barack Obama won 60% of the statewide vote.

But the courts didn’t care. They stepped in and handed Democrats legal victories they could never have achieved through Congress or at the ballot box. Again and again, the judiciary gave Democratic causes the stamp of legitimacy, even as public support wavered.

If Democrats had been forced to legislate these changes, they would have paid the price. In fact, they did. After ramming through Obamacare, Democrats lost more than 1,000 federal, state, and local elections over the next three cycles.

Remember, the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House after the 2016 election — yet Obamacare survived untouched. Why? Because some on the political right prefer having issues to campaign on rather than solving them. It’s easier to grift off outrage than to govern with principle.

Which brings us to today: Trump’s presidency is once again on the line. And here we are, stuck on the same ride. Anyone ready to get off?

With a feckless, do-nothing Congress, real change will only come from Trump and his administration. Like it or not, he’s become our Abraham Lincoln — whether or not you want to see him on Mount Rushmore. And just as Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Trump may need to deliver his own version to free the public from the judicial class that continues to rule without consent.

Venezuelan drug lords have more of a right to step on the soil of America than an unborn baby right now. We cannot sustain a civilization like that, nor do we deserve to.

Mass deportation or bust: Trump’s one shot to get it right



You can’t litigate your way out of an invasion.

Removal is not considered a criminal punishment but an administrative consequence of sovereignty. If it were treated as a form of punishment, it would require due process and could take months to remove even the worst offenders. We see that happening now, and we can no longer afford these delays.

President Donald Trump should challenge overreaching court rulings and use resources more effectively to maximize the number of removals.

End judicial tyranny

Imagine you are a liberal judge on the federal bench. You know the political system — including all three branches of government and both major parties — grants you sweeping authority to dictate policy through an injunction. Regardless of legal precedents, constitutional constraints, rules of standing, or national security concerns, you can issue an opinion that instantly becomes “the law of the land.” Why wouldn’t you exploit that power like a judicial version of Kim Jong Un?

By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.

At some point, we must stop blaming judges for legislating with impunity and start holding the other branches accountable for not just relinquishing their own power but for enabling judges to usurp the law. As St. George Tucker wrote in his commentaries on the Constitution, “If we consider the nature of the judicial authority, and the manner in which it operates, we shall discover that it cannot, of itself, oppress any individual; for the executive authority must lend its aid in every instance where oppression can ensue from its decisions.”

If President Trump is unwilling to simply ignore these lawless rulings, he should at least insist that Congress include a provision in a must-pass bill to eliminate all judicial review for deportations. At a minimum, lower courts should be removed from the process entirely. Unless a plaintiff files a habeas petition claiming the individual is actually a citizen or has been misidentified, all removals should be final.

We already have several million immigrants with criminal convictions living in this country, at least eight million who entered during Joe Biden’s term, and many others who arrived earlier. If we continue to extend this level of due process — whether through administrative courts or Article III courts — we risk undermining our sovereignty. This explains why Trump is averaging only a few hundred thousand removals annually at the current pace.

How did President Dwight D. Eisenhower manage to remove more than one million illegal aliens in just a few months in 1954 — after the passage of the modern Immigration and Nationality Act — without facing endless lawsuits? Today, every deportation becomes a legal battle.

Eisenhower’s administration had fewer resources, just 800 Border Patrol agents, and primitive technology. Still, they got the job done because they believed in themselves and in the nation. They also understood that you don’t repel an invasion through litigation. Our immigration system was never designed to grant full due process to individuals here illegally, and that principle should be clarified in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

When court proceedings — even in administrative courts — are required, Immigration and Customs Enforcement currently must provide detention space for each person it apprehends rather than taking them directly to the point of removal. By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.

But how?

Maritime removals

Trump is currently using military and commercial flights to remove illegal aliens. Most flights carry only 100 to 200 passengers and are difficult to secure against potential unrest. They also cost more, rely on airports in potentially hostile countries, and require additional personnel.

A better option might be to use Navy and Coast Guard vessels from ports in Florida and Texas, which sit along the Gulf Coast toward Latin America. The president could also call on the Department of Transportation’s National Defense Reserve Fleet. This force of about 100 ships receives nearly $1 billion in annual appropriations and can be activated within 20 to 120 days for emergency sealift operations during wartime or in response to disasters.

The NDRF includes mostly cargo ships and tankers. Its Ready Reserve Force — comprised of 41 vessels — provides extra shipping capacity or rapid deployment for U.S. military forces. These ships are stationed at 18 ports, including three in Texas and one in Florida.

This fleet features National Security Multi-Mission Vessels, each able to carry 1,000 people — far more than the roughly 100-person capacity of a C-17 plane or the 150 to 200 seats on most commercial aircraft. These ships can stay at sea for 14 days without resupply and include medical facilities, enough space for 60 cargo containers, a helicopter landing pad, and roll-on/roll-off vehicle capacity. They could be activated immediately and based at a designated port along the Gulf of America.

By using these vessels, President Donald Trump could transport far more unauthorized immigrants for removal at a lower cost than air travel.

Call up National Guard

One major obstacle to large-scale deportations is a lack of detention space. Shifting to maritime operations would shorten the time illegal aliens spend in custody by reducing reliance on deportation flights. Newly apprehended people would enter detention as those previously held depart.

Yet, Trump doesn’t need hundreds of billions of dollars to build new detention facilities. During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. forces suddenly found themselves guarding 65,000 Iraqi prisoners of war who surrendered en masse. The military constructed temporary detention sites practically overnight. Trump could replicate this approach by ordering the National Guard to set up outdoor facilities near Gulf Coast “deportation ports.” It’s an inexpensive, efficient way to get the job done.

Trump will have only one shot to get mass deportations done right. If he deports just a few hundred thousand people each year despite a mandate to address the crisis, critics will say mass deportations are unworkable and push for amnesty. Now is the time for Trump to use every tool and resource at hand to meet that mandate.

Judicial impeachment is a remedy — not a rebellion



Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement last week declaring that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” His remarks come amid renewed debate over the scope of judicial accountability, as some conservatives, including President Trump, have called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg over his handling of cases related to deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Roberts’ assertion, while reflective of modern norms, oversimplifies history. The reality is more complicated: Judicial impeachment has, at times, been driven by judicial decisions and the conduct surrounding them. While impeachment should not be a routine mechanism for challenging case outcomes, history shows it has been used when a judge’s rulings indicate persistent bias, a disregard for legal constraints, or an abuse of judicial authority.

If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

The clearest rebuttal to Roberts’ statement is the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. Chase, a staunch Federalist, was accused of allowing his political views to shape his rulings, particularly in cases related to the Sedition Act. The House of Representatives impeached him for what was effectively a judicial philosophy that his opponents found intolerable.

The Senate ultimately acquitted Chase, but the very fact that he was impeached — explicitly for his conduct on the bench — undermines the claim that judicial decisions have never been a basis for impeachment.

Chase’s case is not an outlier. In 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and removed, partially for erratic behavior but also for making decisions Congress viewed as improper and politically motivated. Judge West Humphreys, a Confederate sympathizer, was removed in 1862 in part because his rulings reflected active opposition to federal law. These cases show that, historically, judicial decisions and their consequences have been central to impeachment discussions.

The constitutional framework

Roberts’ statement implies a rigid wall between impeachment and judicial decision-making, but the Constitution draws no such line.

Article III, Section 1 provides that judges hold office “during good Behaviour,” a standard distinct from the more lenient protections given to elected officials. Article II, Section 4 allows impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That last phrase, historically interpreted to include abuses of power, opens the door to judicial decisions being relevant — not as mere policy disagreements, but as evidence of a judge’s failure to uphold his duties impartially.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 81 acknowledged that judicial misconduct, including decisions reflecting personal bias or disregard for the law, could be grounds for impeachment. The notion that impeachment exists only for personal corruption, rather than judicial overreach or defiance of legal norms, is a modern interpretation rather than an ironclad constitutional principle.

When does a ruling become impeachable?

The key distinction between a bad decision and an impeachable ruling is that the latter falls into a pattern of rulings that indicate a judge is abandoning his role as a neutral arbiter. A single controversial opinion does not justify impeachment, but if a judge repeatedly defies precedent, injects personal ideology into his decisions, or rules in ways that ignore constitutional limits, impeachment could be an appropriate remedy.

Consider the executive branch: A president is not impeached simply for enacting an unpopular policy, but if he abuses his authority, Congress has the power to remove him. The same reasoning applies to the judiciary. If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

A guardrail, not a weapon

None of this is to say that impeachment should be a routine check on judicial power. Judicial independence requires that courts be protected from political retaliation.

But the absolutist claim that impeachment is never an appropriate response to judicial decisions erases historical precedent and ignores the Constitution’s broader framework. Impeachment is not a tool for re-litigating every case, but neither is it an untouchable relic of the past.

Whether or not Congress agrees with Trump that Judge Boasberg should be impeached, it is essential that both judges and lawmakers recognize impeachment as a legitimate constitutional mechanism when a judge is no longer upholding his duty. The debate should not be about whether judicial decisions can ever warrant impeachment — they have before, and they will again — but about where the line is drawn between bad rulings and a true abandonment of judicial responsibility.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Meet The Democrat Donor Judge Hamstringing Trump’s Military ‘Trans’ Policy

O'Hearn's judicial activism hardly makes her an anomaly among rogue judges on board with greenlighting leftists' lawfare against Trump.

If Anyone’s Destroying The Judiciary’s ‘Legitimacy,’ It’s Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts' attempts to preserve what he views as the judiciary's 'legitimacy' are only destroying its credibility with the American people.

Yes, Trump Should Ignore Rogue Judges

Blatantly ignore the court. Send out another flight of gang members, and tell the judge to try and stop it. The country will side with Trump, and we’ll start to break the chains of judicial tyranny.