logo
Judges, rankled by Trump's impeachment calls, agree: ‘It's not a great strategy'

Judges, rankled by Trump's impeachment calls, agree: ‘It's not a great strategy'

Politico20-03-2025

President Donald Trump's call to impeach judges who've ruled against his aggressive use of executive power is prompting alarm and dismay from the jurists who ultimately hold the fate of his policies in their hands.
As Trump's allies have intensified the impeachment movement in recent weeks, current and former judges are rebuking the tactic as unjustified and dangerous, pointing to the availability of a robust appeals process in the courts. They've also highlighted the heated environment in which verbal attacks can escalate into physical threats.
And, as a matter of political strategy, some judges question how singling out individual jurists advances the president's end-game. The vitriol Trump and the MAGA faithful lob at the judiciary is likely to rankle the Supreme Court justices who can deliver the ultimate go-ahead or death knell for stalled aspects of Trump's agenda.
'It's a really bizarre way to do business. If he thinks he can intimidate judges, it's not going to be a successful strategy,' said one sitting federal judge, who was granted anonymity to avoid harassment and retaliation. 'It's not the way to win cases … Maybe it will appeal to the public, maybe from a public relations perspective, but it's not a great strategy for the judges that I know.'
The judge also said his colleagues were braced for the escalation because of a series of prior pro-impeachment comments from Trump adviser Elon Musk and the introduction of impeachment resolutions by the president's allies in Congress.
'It's kind of disappointing, but I can't say I'm surprised,' the judge said. 'It was obviously all orchestrated.'
Trump resisted joining the impeachment drive for several weeks as some of his most strident supporters railed against judges on social media, but he jumped on the bandwagon Tuesday. In a post on Truth Social, Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg
a 'Radical Left Lunatic'
and urged he be removed from office for blocking deportation of Venezuelan alleged gang members under a rarely invoked wartime legal authority.
Trump's escalation of his challenge to the judiciary drew an immediate, if slightly oblique, response from Chief Justice John Roberts.
'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,'
Roberts said in a statement
that did not mention by name either Trump or Boasberg.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair
defended Trump's call
for impeaching Boasberg in an interview with POLITICO on Wednesday. 'What we're encouraging is a public debate and I think it's a reasonable public debate,' Blair said.
Under the Constitution, federal judges have life tenure — as long as they display '
good behavior
.' Impeachment and conviction by Congress is the only way to remove judges from the bench, and the process is the same for removing presidents: A majority of the House must vote to impeach and two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict.
That's an extraordinarily high bar that is
politically unrealistic
even in the current GOP-controlled Congress. Throughout history, the House has impeached just
15 federal judges
, and only eight of them have been convicted by the Senate. Virtually all of those impeachments involved allegations of unethical or illegal conduct, not simply disagreement over the judges' rulings.
One former federal judge, Nancy Gertner, said none of the recent rulings against Trump policies comes close to triggering the standard for impeaching a judge.
'The threats of impeachment are nothing short of horrifying,' said Gertner, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and spent 17 years on the district court in Massachusetts. 'The distance between what we impeach for and what he's accusing these judges for is enormous … It's preposterous.'
Musk and other Trump allies have called for impeachment of judges who have blocked key pieces of the president's agenda, including lifting a broad freeze the administration tried to impose on grants and contracts, limiting access by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team to Treasury Department payment databases and requiring health agencies to restore web pages about vaccines and transgender health care.
Gertner said Trump is precipitating the conflict with the judiciary by insisting on rapidly carrying out his agenda on issues like immigration, the federal workforce and government spending, often without following legally required steps.
'He could have done all of these cases normally and, you know, respectfully, and is likely to have won in some cases, but he doesn't want to do it that way. He wants to prove his power. And that's the frightening part,' Gertner said.
Former federal judge Bernice Donald, who spent nearly three decades on the bench, first as a district judge in Memphis appointed by Clinton and then appointed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals by President Barack Obama, said she couldn't recall similar campaigns of invective against judges. 'I don't think you've seen this from the highest levels of government,' she said.
'Laws are not self-executing,' Donald said. 'We also need a fair and independent judiciary who can look at, interpret and apply those laws, and we need to be worried about undermining the judiciary's ability to enforce the laws that Congress passes.'
Retired Justice Stephen Breyer publicly endorsed Roberts' statement Wednesday, saying impeachment should be reserved for cases of misconduct, not for disagreement with a judge's rulings.
'He's trying to explain to the people of this country how the legal system works and how it doesn't work,' Breyer said on CNN. 'It doesn't work by impeaching a judge because you don't like his decision.'
Breyer also gave a disturbingly ambiguous answer when anchor Wolf Blitzer asked if the nation is approaching a constitutional crisis. 'No one really knows. No one really knows. People have different views on that,' the justice said. 'The best thing, I think, for the judges is: You follow the law. You simply follow the law.'
Some judges said Trump's call for impeachments was part of a series of moves that seemed strategically unwise because they were particularly likely to antagonize the chief justice.
Even allowing for Trump's often overheated rhetoric, his description of Boasberg, an appointee of Obama, as a 'radical left lunatic' has been dismissed out of hand by many of the judge's colleagues. Boasberg is a former homicide prosecutor with more than two decades of judicial experience at both the local and federal level. He became the chief judge of the district court in Washington in 2023, and he is well respected by lawyers and fellow judges who work at the federal courthouse in the nation's capital.
He is not seen as a leftist. Some judges noted that Roberts himself appointed Boasberg to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2014, which handles highly sensitive surveillance applications and delicate civil-liberties questions.
Trump's executive orders
targeting large law firms
with prominent Democratic clients have also troubled lawyers of various political persuasions and could alienate some members of the Supreme Court. Conservative lawyers in particular have complained in recent years that attorneys representing conservative causes, including Trump himself, have had to leave their law firms when they came under pressure.
'The Rule of Law depends upon lawyers being free to advocate for all causes, to represent those in need of legal representation, and to challenge government actions that may violate statutory and constitutional norms,' the American College of Trial Lawyers said in
a statement
last week addressing Trump's actions against
Covington & Burling
and
Perkins Coie
. 'The White House's retaliating against a law firm merely because it represented a client against whom the Executive Branch has a grievance, threatens the bedrock principles of our system of justice.'
Roberts and Trump seemed to have a friendly interaction earlier this month when the president addressed a joint session of Congress. The chief justice voted against Trump in some big first-term fights, but backed him last year in a challenge to his presence on the presidential ballot and in a crucial battle over presidential immunity.
The big legal battles of Trump's second term still lie ahead, but Roberts has already voted with Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to
turn down the administration's request
for emergency relief in a dispute over foreign aid funding.
And when the administration brought an urgent petition to the court last week asking the justices to
effectively end the practice of judges issuing nationwide injunctions
, Roberts gave the administration's opponents three weeks to respond — an unusually long time for a case on the court's so-called emergency docket.
Though Trump's call for impeachment referred only to Boasberg, the president's supporters in Congress in recent weeks have introduced articles of impeachment against other federal district court judges. They include Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee in New York who last month
blocked most administration officials
from accessing sensitive Treasury records; Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee in Washington who
ordered the restoration of federal web pages
about transgender health care and vaccines; and Judge Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee in Washington who ordered the administration to
pay bills for completed work
on foreign-aid projects.
The furor around Engelmayer's order and the calls for his impeachment resulted in what his colleague, fellow Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken, described earlier this month as 'really disturbing communications' aimed at Engelmayer and his family. There were 'some at the level of threatening,' Oetken said at an American Bar Association conference in Miami earlier this month. 'And that's really troubling.'
Musk made clear Wednesday he still wants to see multiple judges impeached, despite the lack of any indication that there are the votes to do that, let alone remove them from office. He also sent campaign donations to at least six House members pressing for judicial impeachments,
the New York Times reported
.
'For more than two centuries, there has never such [sic] extreme abuse of the legal system by activists pretending to be judges,' Musk
wrote on his social media site, X
. 'Impeach them.'
On his X account, Musk has posted about impeachment more than a dozen times this week. On Thursday, he
reposted
what he called an 'accurate' message denouncing Roberts for pushing back against Trump's call for impeaching judges.
One fact overlooked by the White House and Trump allies: On the same day Boasberg blocked Trump's deportations of Venezuelans rand ordered planes carrying them turned around, another federal judge — appointed by Trump — blocked the deportation of an individual Venezuelan whose lawyers claim he was being sent out of the country 'due to an order from the President.'
But that judge has not generated any of the ire from the right that Boasberg has.
U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who was nominated by Trump in 2017 and confirmed the following year,
granted the emergency relief Saturday
at the request of attorneys for Daniel Zacarias Matos. He was, and is, being held at the same south Texas detention center where some or all of the more than 200 Venezuelans deported Saturday were kept just before they were flown out of the U.S.
Rodriguez's order covers only Zacarias Matos and makes no mention of turning planes around, but says he can't be transferred from that detention center without a further order of the court. The judge has set a hearing for next Wednesday on whether Trump has the power under the Alien Enemies Act to deport Zacarias Matos even though he has no final deportation order from an immigration court.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.

Politico

time17 minutes ago

  • Politico

Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS

Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. MORE: Speaker Johnson tries to protect fate of megabill from Trump-Musk crossfire Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. MORE: Trump-Musk feud leaves some DOGE staffers worried about their futures: Sources He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. MORE: Trump tells ABC Musk 'lost his mind,' as CEO's dad says 'make sure this fizzles out' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same. Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS originally appeared on

DOGE caucus leader says Elon Musk made a 'massive exaggeration' about spending cuts
DOGE caucus leader says Elon Musk made a 'massive exaggeration' about spending cuts

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

DOGE caucus leader says Elon Musk made a 'massive exaggeration' about spending cuts

A key DOGE-minded lawmaker in Congress calling out Elon Musk amid his feud with Trump. "Most everybody knew Elon was exaggerating to what he could do," said Rep. Blake Moore of Utah. He also said Musk was "parroting false claims" about the "Big Beautiful Bill." Shortly after the feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk hit its apex on Thursday, a key DOGE-minded lawmaker in Congress had some pointed words about the world's richest man. "Most everybody knew Elon was exaggerating to what he could do," Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah told reporters outside the Capitol. "He was claiming finding $4 billion a day in cuts he was going to get. One time, he said $2 trillion, he was going to find." "It's a massive exaggeration, and I think people are recognizing that now," Moore said. The Utah Republican is one of the three co-leaders of the House DOGE caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers who had hoped to support Musk's cost-cutting efforts. The caucus met a handful of times at the beginning of the year, and leaders previously told BI that they intended to compile a report of potential cost-saving measures for DOGE at the end of the first quarter of this year. That didn't end up happening, in part because the White House DOGE Office ultimately had little interaction with the caucus. One Democratic member declared the group to be "dead" last month. "We've always been a little frustrated that there was such limited interaction," Moore said on Thursday. "We couldn't really identify where we were to lean in, and we had a ton of folks ready to support it, but there just wasn't that interaction." Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Moore said that he wanted to pursue cuts to federal spending through the bipartisan government funding process, saying that there are "plenty of Democrats that recognize there's waste in our government." GOP leaders have said they'll pursue DOGE cuts both through that process and through "rescission" packages, the first of which is set to be voted on in the House next week. The first package, which includes cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid, is $9.4 billion, just a fraction of the cost savings that Musk once predicted. "It's definitely kind of over-promising, under-delivering," Moore said. Musk's public feud with Trump began last week, when the tech titan began criticizing the "Big Beautiful Bill" that Republicans are trying to muscle through Congress. The bill is projected to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, though Republicans have argued that those forecasts do not account for the economic growth that might be spurred by the bill. That feud boiled over on Tuesday, with the two men engaging in a war of words on their respective social media platforms. "When I saw Musk start posting, just parroting false claims about the tax reconciliation bill, it was clear something's amiss," Moore said. "And so it escalated, yeah. It escalated very quickly." Read the original article on Business Insider

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store