Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular
Unlike certain recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito has consistently delivered for God-fearing conservatives and constitutionalists.
This consistency and Alito's resistance to the fads of the day have made him a popular target for Democratic lawmakers and other radical leftists, along with their fellow travelers in the liberal media.
Democrats including Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) have, for instance, pressured Alito to recuse himself from cases of consequence. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), have painted a target on his back, calling him a "threat to our democracy." Liberal publications such as the New York Times and ProPublica have pushed false narratives framing him as an extremist or at the very least as unethical. A false-flagger who helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 futilely tried to catch Alito saying something damning on tape. A radical even allegedly threatened to assassinate him last year.
Alito underscored in his recent interview with Peter Robinson, host of the Hoover Institution's "Uncommon Knowledge," that the judiciary has a responsibility to resist possession by the zeitgeist and to do what is right, even if unpopular.
In 2022, Alito gave a speech in Rome at a religious liberty summit convened by the Religious Liberty Initiative of the University of Notre Dame's law school, where he underscored that religious liberty is far more than just "freedom of worship."
'Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.'
"Freedom of worship means freedom to do these things that you like to do in the privacy of your home, or in your church or your synagogue or your mosque or your temple. But when you step outside into the public square, in the light of day, you had better behave yourself like a good secular citizen," said the conservative justice. "That's the problem that we face."
RELATED: American de-Christianization: Why it's happening and what it will mean for the republic
Photo by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images
When asked in the interview published Wednesday to expound on his suggestion in the Rome speech, Alito told Robinson, "I think it is the problem that we face because support for religious liberty, unfortunately, has cratered in the last 20, 25 years."
After Alito raised the matter of how the U.S. Constitution singles out religion and gives it protection that is not similarly afforded to views that are not religiously based, Robinson said, "I can't remember who it was who said that it's fair to expect the judicial system to ignore the politics of the day but naive to expect the judicial system to remain unaffected by the politics of the era — something like that. And if public support for religion, public practice of religion — if the support, as you just said, is 'cratering' — what can the court do over the long term?"
Alito indicated that the Constitution wouldn't turn on a faithful minority just because the majority turned on faith.
"There's a reason why we're not elected. We are not supposed to do what is popular. We're supposed to do what is right," said Alito. "We're supposed to interpret the Constitution and figure out what it means, and then apply the Constitution. That's the purpose of this institution, the core purpose of this institution."
RELATED: Secularists think they won at the Supreme Court — but they’ll lose in the end
Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
While suggesting that America is "basically a democratic country," Alito noted that the Framers, wary of the mob and its impulses, applied "some restraint on things that people might do."
James Madison was among the Founding Fathers aware of the need for checks on the mob, noting in Federalist No. 55 that "passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."
In Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed how the republican government could serve as a check on the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the "rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority."
"We have to stand firm on this, and I think we have done a pretty good job on it," said Alito, "but we have to keep it up because challenges ... will continue to come."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
SCOTUS Must Rein In Rogue Judges Threatening To Enable Violent Rioters
Trump Should Force Congress And SCOTUS To Stop Rogue Judges By Ignoring Unconstitutional Injunctions
Power-Grabbing WI Judges Are Learning From Rogue Federal Jurists
Emil Bove Is A Bold And Outstanding Choice For The Third Circuit
Deadly Sabotage Could Destroy Trump’s Legacy, And America Too
Now, he's up against a much greater opponent than Kamala Harris or Joe Biden: the administrative state itself
House tries to limit overreach by activist federal district judges: 'We're shutting down the judicial coup'
The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 passed the U.S. House in a 219-213 vote along party lines on Wednesday.
The bill would amend chapter 85, title 8 of the U.S. Code to prohibit a U.S. district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who introduced the legislation in February, noted that the Trump-endorsed bill "would impose important limits on nationwide injunctions, which activist Federal courts are weaponizing in an attempt to undermine President Trump's legitimate powers under Article II of the Constitution."
While the legislation will likely fail in the U.S. Senate, where a handful of Democrats would have to come on board in order to reach the 60-vote threshold, the passage of the bill in Congress nevertheless signals mounting frustration with judicial overreach, particularly by Democrat-appointed district judges such as:
- Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed foreign-born lesbian judge who worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy and issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military;
- James Boasberg, an Obama judge who temporarily blocked summary deportations of apparent Tren de Aragua terrorists by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act;
- Leo Sorokin, an Obama judge who blocked the Trump administration's enactment of the president's birthright citizenship order;
- Brendan Hurson, a Biden judge who issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Trump's executive orders targeting federal funding for the promotion of gender ideology; and
- Loren AliKhan, a radical Biden judge who temporarily blocked Trump's federal spending freeze.
The Congressional Research Service indicated in a March 28 report that the "Department of Justice had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued during the first Trump administration" as of February 2020.
'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'
The CRS said there had already been at least 17 cases of national injunctions during the second Trump administration between Jan. 20 and March 27.
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, is among the louder critics of this apparent effort by Democrat-appointed judges to prevent the execution of the president's agenda. He asked in the wake of one district judge's injunction, "Is there no end to this madness?"
"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," Miller wrote last month. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness."
'It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.'
The House Judiciary GOP noted that the No Rogue Rulings Act "limits activist judges' power and ensures policy decisions stay with elected officials, not unelected judges."
"No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President's constitutional powers," wrote Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas). "We're shutting down the judicial coup."
While Democrats uniformly voted against the bill in the House and may do so again in the Senate, Issa made clear that activist judges and judicial overreach could be a problem for everyone eventually.
"In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds," Issa said on the House floor Tuesday, reported Politico. "This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan."
It appears Democrats are thinking short-term, content to let judges set federal policy.
"Here's a message: if you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable."
"When a ruling goes against the Administration, injunctions work as a check and balance against an administration bent on bullying the bench to its will," said Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey (D). "This isn’t baseball; it can be a matter of life and liberty versus incarceration and impoverishment and should be a matter for serious and thoughtful consideration."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
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.
Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Destroy The Judicial Branch
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories