Our federal judiciary is out of control. District judges are interpreting laws in ways never intended by the legislature (January 6 prosecutions). They’re stepping outside their authorized jurisdiction (immigration) and violating the constitutional authorities of the other branches (funding and foreign policy).
Last week I wrote that, like all organizations free from accountability, our courts have had a multi-decade slide into corruption. Political division within the country has caused the checks and balances created by our founders to fail. Given that the formal tools available to correct rogue behavior in the judiciary are no longer effective, it’s time to get creative.
Even though the Supreme Court sits atop the Article III branch of government, it is not constitutionally empowered to take systemic corrective actions on the lower courts. It has no authority to discipline unethical behavior. It can’t dismiss incompetent or disruptive personnel. It can’t make organizational changes, nor change the authorities of the lower courts.
The Supreme Court’s official power is limited to correcting errant decisions of the lower courts. When district or appellate judges decide that their loyalty is to the “resistance” rather than the people they have sworn an oath to, the Supreme Court can do little more – constitutionally – than function as a safety net on a case-by-case basis. The justices can correct flawed decisions, but they cannot take corrective action to prevent future flawed decisions.
But, “no constitutional authority” does not mean “no moral authority.” If the Supreme Court Justices would simply use their moral authority – rather than piss it away with meaningless proclamations that there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges” – they could significantly prod the lower court judges back towards doing their jobs of ensuring unbiased application of the laws passed by the people’s representatives.
Anyone can make criminal or oversight referrals – which are simply a “somebody should look into this” statement. If the Supreme Court – or even just the Chief Justice – took the unprecedented step of making impeachment referrals to Congress, it would
- Highlight the crisis of activist judges to the public;
- Prod Congress into a more aggressive oversight role; and
- Would be a seismic event to lower courts, shaking them to their foundation.
Such an action would be a “shot across the bow” to the lower courts, that they are not, and never have been, immune from accountability. They’ve merely been escaping consequences while those with the power over them have been excusing their behavior.
The Supreme Court knows quite well who its problem children are. Its emergency docket is flooded with decisions by the “resistance.”
During the judiciary’s spring conference (presided over by Chief Justice Roberts), District Judge James Boasberg spoke to other judges about a defendant in cases before them. He expressed his belief that President Trump would defy any rulings that they made. His lobbying was a clearly unethical attempt to bias other judges against one side in cases before them. Boasberg knew it was wrong, but he did it anyway. Because why not?
District Judge Paula Xinis trespassed in another court’s jurisdiction (immigration). Even though she was prohibited from involving herself in immigration matters, she ordered the Article II branch of government (the executive) to break the law and admit an illegal alien to the country. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that she should have never accepted the case, she threatened to hold the administration in contempt. Because why not?
District Judge Indira Talwani decided to commandeer Congress’ constitutional authority over the budget. She ordered that Government payments to Planned Parenthood continue, even though Congress had cut such funding from the budget. Other judges have similarly infringed on the Executive Branches constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, and command the military. Because why not?
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Chief Justice Roberts sent a letter to Congress, with the names of a couple of district judges which he is recommending for impeachment, just to see how it would change the risk/reward calculus of “resistance” posers in robes? I’d suggest that Judges Boasberg and Xinis would make excellent test cases.
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA