Chief Justice Responds to Trump

Trump said on social media that U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg should be impeached for blocking the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process.

Trump criticized Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge” and wrote: “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Chief Justice Roberts, like he did when Trump the first time around talked about "Obama judges," decided to publicly respond. Concerns that the Administration was violating a court order might have factored in though it was not directly addressed:

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.

Compare this understanding of history to Roberts creating presidential immunity in Trump v. U.S. 

His statement is not likely to be meant to be addressed to Donald Trump personally. Roberts is speaking to others. Formally, it was a statement released to the media. There are press release and media statement pages he could have used.

Walter Nixon v. United States left impeachment largely to Congress. It is a political question to determine what is impeachable. Trump's statement is unhinged but it is still political opinion.  

Members of the House are starting to talk about impeaching judges for allegedly making bad decisions. That is wrong. Nonetheless, decisions on whom to impeach are political questions.  

Also, Roberts should avoid responding to trolls. Trump has and will continue to make various unhinged statements about federal judges. Selectively responding is a fool's game. 

On the other side, there will be the usual whataboutism. Reasonable impeachment efforts, including AOC's support of the impeachment of Alito (weaker) and Thomas (quite valid), are not comparable to Trump's approach. And, Trump is not some mere member of Congress. 

An update flagged Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who apologized for her Trump remarks. If the guy wants to join with the liberals to support binding ethical guidelines for all justices, good for him, but don't think so. Thomas and to a lesser degree Alito are problems to a special level. 

Yes, impeachment efforts will be lean partisan. It's done via a political process. Some Republicans in the end supported impeaching Nixon but many more Democrats did. For lower court judges, the serious impeachment efforts have been more bipartisan. 

Most impeachments, there were around twenty, involved federal judges. The first involved a district judge who was unfit to serve. The Chase impeachment was partisan but raised concerns about some of his rulings that might have had due process red flags. 

Ethical rules provide one means to address judicial wrongdoing. Term limits are also a good idea. Mere opposition to rulings, especially unfounded opposition, is not a good reason. 

Term limits can provide a form of political checks, including perhaps a possible retention election -- Congress can decide after 10-15 years, for instance, whether a judge should remain.

Politicians can also strongly criticize judges. Kagan recently confirmed that is obviously valid, even if they do a poor job of criticizing. Roberts' end-of-the-year report seemed to mix illicit interference with criticism.

News coverage reminded people that Roberts has also criticized Democrats:

In 2020, Roberts criticized comments Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., made at a rally outside the Supreme Court when the justices were considering a high-profile abortion case.

Schumer said justices had “released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Roberts called the comments “inappropriate” and “dangerous.”

Schumer's rhetoric was problematic. The attacks on judges in recent years have made caution advisable. It is somewhat unlikely Schumer would phrase it quite that way today. We can explain away it as rhetorical excess by someone who has not earned special concern to the degree of Trump. Still, no, Chuck.

Anyway, if Roberts wants to respond, do so in his official capacity. Trump v. U.S. is how not to do it. For now, yes, this leads people to recall this meme:

Roberts (along with Barrett), is going to now and then voice concern. The rest of the time, well, they will enable Trump. You ultimately helped do this, dude.

Some conservatives and libertarians reasonably support what Roberts said. Fewer were consistent about the threat Trump brought. 

Still, we can appreciate that there still is some sense of perspective.