The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.
My regular readers know that I see a number of left-wing legal writings from day to day. One of the more sane (from time to time) pundits is Ilya Somin of George Mason University. In his latest piece, he bemoans the “Perils of the Unitary Executive Theory.” He begins by saying,
The originalist case for a unitary executive falls apart in an era when many of the powers wielded by the executive branch were not originally supposed to be federal powers in the first place.
For those who didn’t major in Constitutional Law, Somin is referring to Article II, § 1, Sentence 1, which says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” That’s pretty simple. And it is, as the Supreme Court loves to say, “Black Letter Law.”
Further, in more words from the Court, it is “unqualified.” That means that all power in the Executive Branch belongs to Donald Trump. No “ifs,” “buts,” or “excepts.” “All” means “all.” Put bluntly, as long as he occupies the White House, every bureaucrat is obligated to do what he says. If you don’t like it, then “You’re fired!”
Image by Andrea Widburg
This isn’t complicated, and as push comes to shove, all the Supreme Court needs to do is look at the language of the Constitution. In every case, Trump wins. Even Somin admits that “he is supposed to have all the power given to the executive branch, except such as is specifically allocated elsewhere in other parts of the Constitution.” The next step is where Somin goes off the rails. He confuses proximate and ultimate causation.
Somin is correct that the Executive branch wields great powers that were not envisioned in the original discussions around the Constitution. In this, he agrees with James Madison in Federalist 41. Madison states that using the general welfare clause (Article I, § 8, Clause 1) to allow the government to “exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare” is a “stooping to…a misconstruction.”
Madison goes on to state that logically, the enumerated powers that follow the general welfare clause explain what the clause means. In short, if it’s not in that detailed list after the General Welfare Clause, the federal government isn’t supposed to do it.
When I asked ChatGPT when this changed, it pointed me to United States v. Butler (1936), where the Court said, “The power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
You can take your jaw off the floor now. During the New Deal under FDR, the Supreme Court threw the entire concept of enumerated powers out the window. This was set in concrete with Helvering v. Davis (1937), which explicitly allowed Congress to use the General Welfare Clause to do almost anything it wanted to do with your tax dollars.
As for the President’s management powers, most of the questions are unanswered. Myers v. United States(1926) clarified that the President has the freedom to fire any official he nominated, and the Senate confirmed. Then Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) limited his removal power for certain specific officials. Morrison v. Olson (1988) basically echoed Humphrey’s Executor for Special Counsels. Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) and Bessent v. Dellinger (2025, DC Court of Appeals) have both chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor, and many legal observers are suggesting that the Court is looking for a way to put it six feet under.
What does this all mean for President Trump’s actions to fire lots of bureaucrats? For almost a century, Congress has felt free to create and fund lots of agencies and the cronies to operate them. This becomes a great feedback loop where more bureaucrats discover more “needs” for Congress to answer.
And with little or no pushback from anyone in the White House, the Federal Government and debt have exploded. Then a true outsider showed up. He was stymied by a Swamp more impenetrable and Dismal than he ever imagined. Even his own Vice President has now been proven to be part of the enemy swarm.
But when Donald Trump sat a second time behind the Resolute Desk with Sharpie in hand, DC changed. He can neuter many of his opponents simply by denying them access to classified information. This strips them of access to the corridors of power and rich sinecures due to their privilege.
So, it’s no surprise that they are actively pursuing legal Hail Mary strategies. But those remedies are running headlong into Article II, Section 1. Democrat district judges can try to gum up the works, but the Constitution does not care, and, ultimately, virtually everything will end up in the lap of the Supreme Court, where, contra Professor Somin, Donald Trump possesses plenary power over the management of the Executive Branch.
Ilya Somin has missed the point. Admitting that the President has complete authority over his branch of government would not be a problem if Congress was properly constrained by the Constitution’s enumerated powers. But since a rogue progressive Court ignored the plain history and tradition of the General Welfare Clause, we have a behemoth in DC. When Saint George Trump arrived to slay this dragon, those who benefit from it started screaming. Donald’s Ascalon is the proximal “threat to America” that the Swamp fears when, in fact, the ultimate threat is the Swamp itself.
We must be careful to avoid Professor Somin’s error of mistaking the proximate cause of whatever we fear for the ultimate cause. We can fix a thousand proximate causes, and like Hydra, a new head of the monster will appear. Until we return our government to one of limited, constitutionally enumerated powers, we will not have subdued the threat to our republic.
Washington, D.C. – Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is taking immediate steps to unleash Alaska’s untapped natural resource potential and support President Donald J. Trump’s vision of American Energy Dominance.
Under the Secretary’s leadership, the Bureau of Land Management will pursue steps to expand opportunities for exploration and development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The BLM will also work towards partial revocation of public land withdrawals that will help solidify the path forward for the proposed Ambler Road and Alaska Liquified Natural Gas Pipeline projects.
“It’s time for the U.S. to embrace Alaska’s abundant and largely untapped resources as a pathway to prosperity for the nation, including Alaskans,” said Secretary Burgum. “For far too long, the federal government has created too many barriers to capitalizing on the state’s energy potential. Interior is committed to recognizing the central role the State of Alaska plays in meeting our nation’s energy needs, while providing tremendous economic opportunity for Alaskans.”
In this initial suite of actions to implement Executive Order 14153 and Secretary’s Order 3422, both titled “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential,” the Interior and BLM will pursue:
Reopening up to 82% of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska available to leasing and expanding energy development opportunities in the approximately 23-million-acre reserve. This plan would balance the Secretary’s responsibilities to provide for oil and gas leasing, exploration and development consistent with the energy needs of the nation and protect important surface resources in the reserve.
Reinstating a program that makes the entire 1.56-million-acre Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge available for oil and gas leasing. This program would fulfill Congress’ intent in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and advance American Energy Dominance, while maintaining strong protections for important surface resources and uses in the Coastal Plain
Revoking withdrawals along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Corridor and Dalton Highway north of the Yukon River in order to convey these lands to State of Alaska. This action would help pave the way forward for the proposed Ambler Road and the Alaska Liquified Natural Gas Pipeline project, two projects that stand to increase job opportunities and encourage Alaska’s economic growth.
Earlier this year, President Trump committed to unlocking Alaska’s abundant supply of natural resources for the benefit of Alaskans and the nation, providing economic and national security for many generations to come. Through these actions and more to come, Interior is set to deliver on the President’s promise.
“Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ ‘due process.'” — Buck Sexton
Impeachment would be too mild for the claque of Woke-activist federal judges attempting to nullify the executive branch with hectoring writs against any and all sorts of executive actions. If simply bounced off their benches, they could just take up new careers as NPR legal commentators or transsexual pole-dancers. Rather, what you’ve got here is an obvious seditious conspiracy, plain for all to see, orchestrated by the same legal Nosferatus as RussiaGate, the 2020 election, and the J-6 witch hunt.
The catch is, this time it is discoverable and subject to prosecution because the party running this legal insurrection no longer has its hands on the levers of power in the DOJ and the FBI as it did when they ran the aforementioned ops. And from those two agencies just now should tell you something: namely, that cases are being carefully constructed to finally bring these despicable caitiffs to real and chastening law.
If you want to know one paramount reason for institutional failure in our country, look to the evil enterprise that calls itself “Lawfare.” It originated as a blog launched on September 1, 2010, founded by three key figures: Benjamin Wittes, Jack Goldsmith, and Robert Chesney. Over time it evolved into an activist operation, The Lawfare Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to (cough cough) “Hard National Security Choices,” and run under the shady umbrella of the Brookings Institution.
The point of Lawfare is self-evident in its name: it is an instrument of warfare against a perceived enemy which, for the past decade, has been the political faction led by Mr. Trump, the once-and-current chief executive of the federal government. Mr. Trump is a danger to the bureaucratic arm of the federal government because he has defined it as a racketeering operation and moved decisively to end its depredations. Lawfare is the praetorian guard of the permanent DC bureaucracy, including especially its rogue intel actors, who function as enforcers for the Democratic party that largely staffs the bureaucracy.
Norm Eisen, a Brookings senior fellow, is the chief operational strategist for the Lawfare enterprise. He has been active in all its ops, capers, and mind-f**ks since Mr. Trump came on the scene in 2015 vowing to “drain the swamp” (i.e., end the racketeering). Norm Eisen holds leadership roles in two subsidiary Lawfare orgs: States United Democracy Center and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Eisen’s broader connection stems from his history of orchestrating legal challenges against Mr. Trump — advising the Mueller investigation, drafting impeachment articles, and leading CREW’s 200-plus lawsuits in Mr. Trump’s first term.
Now, following the Biden interregnum, Norm Eisen leverages a network of nonprofits (ACLU, Public Citizen, etc.) and left-leaning judges to file hundreds of new lawsuits to thwart the MAGA clean-up effort under Elon Musk’s DOGE. Tax filings show that CREW’s funding, in part, comes from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Item: during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, CREW received $432,000 in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans from Newtek Small Business, which evolved into a financial holding company after acquiring National Bank of New York City in January 2023, rebranded as Newtek Bank.
The money-laundering through multitudinous foundations, NGOs, and “non-profits” is the essence of the Democratic Party’s racketeering mode in league with federal bureaucracies such as USAID that dispensed billions of dollars to a vast network of activist recipients. Translation: it provides salaries (often six-figures) to party foot-soldiers whose only duties are to move the money through the organizational layers and to be available for such party tasks as ballot harvesting, vote-counting, and organizing riots.
This is the mischief that Mr. Trump seeks to put an end to, and so he must be thwarted at all costs by those whose lifeblood depends on the ongoing rackets. The so-called “Resistance” alliance between the Democratic Party and the bureaucracy seeks to prevent reform by any means necessary. Since they no longer control potent executive agencies such as the DOJ and the FBI for intimidating and punishing their enemies, their only recourse is the federal judiciary and its officers of the courts, that is, lawyers and judges practicing Lawfare.
The federal judges are political appointees, such as John J. McConnell from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, who was a personal injury lawyer (i.e., “ambulance chaser”) and major Democratic Party doner, giving nearly $700,000 to party causes, and serving as Rhode Island Democratic State Committee treasurer. Judge McConnell issued a wide-ranging restraining order against the DOGE-advised freeze of federal funding launched in February of this year. McConnell’s daughter, Catherine, is a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of Education, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. See how that works?
Similarly, James Boasberg, a RussiaGate cast member, and as a presiding judge in the DC federal court in sixty J-6 cases. Independent journalist Laura Loomer alleges that Judge Boasberg’s daughter, Katherine, works for Partners for Justice (PFJ), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is dedicated to defending “criminal illegal aliens and gang members,” including opposing their deportation, and that it receives significant funding from U.S. government grants, such as those from USAID. Judge Boasberg notoriously issued a restraining order last week against the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members labeled by the DOJ as a terrorist organization. See how that works?
Now, the difference between Lawfare and the practice of law is that Lawfare trafficks lavishly in lies to do its business in the courts and actual law practice is supposed to be dedicated to ascertaining the truth in matters that come before the courts. Lawfare is grounded in dishonesty — as is its main client, the Democratic Party. That is exactly why Judge James Boasberg went along with FBI Director James Comey’s false warrant applications in the FISA court that enabled the RussiaGate operation to do its dirty business. Thus, the grand orchestrator of the Lawfare enterprise as a whole, Norm Eisen, is a sort of Father-of-Lies.
Remember beyond all this sturm and drang stands an essential principle: the truth is sturdy and untruth is fragile. Like you, I am standing by to see what eventually comes out of the Trump DOJ in the way of cases that might definitively settle this mighty battle between Lawfare and the law.
“Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.” ― Walter E. Williams
“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong” ― Walter E. Williams
“The War between the States… produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day. Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. … [The War] also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that ‘Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’.” ― Walter E. Williams
That’s because the party’s base never has been as angry with Democrats in Congress as being displayed now.
Progressives and liberals in the party are irate that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other senate Democrats helped pass a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown.
Grassroot party members want Democrats to go all out in fighting President Donald Trump and the GOP agenda.
A recent CNN poll showed that 57% of Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents said Democrats should mainly work to stop the Republican agenda. In September 2017, 74% said the party should work with Republicans to try to get some Democrat ideas into legislation.
For the first time in the Quinnipiac University Poll, though, congressional Democrats are underwater with their own voters in approval ratings in the annual first-quarter congressional polling.
The rupture among Democrats could reshape the 2026 primary election season, according to Politico.
Only 40% of Democrats approve of the job performance of congressional Democrats compared to 49% who disapprove. A year ago, 75% of Democrats approved compared to just 21% who disapproved.
The outlet said the “intensity of the anger roiling the party is at a historic level.”
Still, Democrat voters are not indicating a desire to pull the party to the left or the right. Recent Gallup polling found that 45% say they want the party to become more moderate, 29% say they want it to become more liberal, and 22% say they want it to stay the same.
Progressives, however, know in what direction they want to go.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., told The New York Times that he’s trying to “rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party.”
That might not guarantee success, as third parties continue to see their vote shares decline and polarization between the two major parties continues to rise, Politico reported. Thus, the odds of dissatisfied Democrats voting for non-Democrat candidates are extremely low.
With 13 Democrat-held Senate seats up for reelection next year, younger, insurgent candidates more closely aligned with the party base could emerge to rattle veterans.
The question arises because the facts behind the term “classical liberal” are usually a revelation. This is a vital consideration given the political realignment in the states and around the world, with many on the Left moving to the Right and becoming classically liberal or just liberal in the truest sense of the word.
If that sounds confusing, it’s been primarily caused by the usual leftist Orwellian distortions of reality with word meanings, where without rational justification they have laid claim to every positive-sounding political term to cover for the fact that their collectivist ideologies are grounded in falsehoods and force. Thus, it’s important to consider the question and the facts of classical liberalism.
The phrase can be traced from the fact that the Founding Fathers were considered liberals, but their ideological beliefs were antithetical to leftists who wanted to exploit the term as their own. Anti-liberty leftists have cynically co-opted the term to hide their authoritarian intentions. Thus, the phrase classical liberal was conjured up to somehow differentiate the two, even though the phrase is hardly ever defined in most dictionaries and “classical liberal” usually defaults to “liberal.” The problem for them is that the facts behind the word’s original meaning still exist, and even worse for them, most dictionariesdon’t distinguish between the two terms.,with a few going full Orwell in trying to modify and muddle the meaning to bring it in line with far-left dogma that is antithetical to the ‘classical’ definition. But let’s start with a short video from a few years ago that provides a short overview of: What is a Classical Liberal.
Classical liberalism is the idea that individual freedom and limited government are the best way for humans to form a free society. The classical liberal tradition was born from great thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Jefferson. While they all tinkered in their own way with the ideas of classical liberalism the core belief that the individual should always be considered above the group always remain constant. Thomas Jefferson even threw in the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence to drive home the point that your happiness wasn’t the government’s to give but rather yours to take.
Putting the individual above the group not only empowers you to live your life as you see fit but it also neutralizes the forces of racism and bigotry which judge people not on their individuality but on their immutable group characteristics be it color of skin gender or sexuality.
These days liberalism has been confused with leftism or progressivism which actually has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Sadly, the left is no longer liberal at all, for it has traded in individualism for collectivism, thus placing us in an oppression Olympics where victimhood is virtue.
Now, does the idea that individual freedom and limited government as the best way for humans to form a free society sound left-wing or right-wing?
Which side of the political spectrum is based upon the pillars of individualism and individual liberty? Which side is mired in collectivism and nonexistent collective “rights?”
Doesn’t individual freedom and limited government sound very similar to conservatism?
Take note that both ideologies are based on individualism, while the leftist ideologies at the other end of the political spectrum are mired in collectivism. And that it makes the very important point that the Left is no longer liberal. In other words, collective or group “rights” are nonexistent, because rights can only be endowed to the individual.
Dr. Nigel Ashford explains the 10 core principles of the classical liberal & libertarian view of society and the proper role of government:
1) Liberty as the primary political value
2) Individualism
3) Skepticism about power
4) Rule of Law
5) Civil Society
6) Spontaneous Order
7) Free Markets
8) Toleration
9) Peace
10) Limited Government
The second principle is individualism, that the individual is more important than the collective. We should not sacrifice the interest of the individuals for what some people argue is the common good.
This was the central feature of communism and fascism, that individuals didn’t matter.
Again, we see some of the same principles, with a few more added, and all of it resembling more the pro-freedom Right than the authoritarian Left. Note the very important distinction between the two sides of the political spectrum, between the individualism of the Right and the collectivism of the Left.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, former director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.
Take note that both ideologies are based on individualism, while the leftist ideologies at the other end of the political spectrum are mired in collectivism. And that it makes the very important point that the Left is no longer liberal. In other words, collective or group “rights” are nonexistent, because rights can only be endowed to the individual.
Dr. Nigel Ashford explains the 10 core principles of the classical liberal & libertarian view of society and the proper role of government:
1) Liberty as the primary political value
2) Individualism
3) Skepticism about power
4) Rule of Law
5) Civil Society
6) Spontaneous Order
7) Free Markets
8) Toleration
9) Peace
10) Limited Government
The second principle is individualism, that the individual is more important than the collective. We should not sacrifice the interest of the individuals for what some people argue is the common good.
This was the central feature of communism and fascism, that individuals didn’t matter.
Again, we see some of the same principles, with a few more added, and all of it resembling more the pro-freedom Right than the authoritarian Left. Note the very important distinction between the two sides of the political spectrum, between the individualism of the Right and the collectivism of the Left.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, former director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites
WASHINGTON — Former President Joe Biden has told some Democratic leaders he’ll raise funds, campaign and do anything else necessary for Democrats to recover lost ground as the Trump administration rolls back programs the party helped design, according to people close to him.
Biden privately met last month with the new Democratic National Committee chairman, Ken Martin, and offered to help as the party struggles to regain its viability amid polling that shows its popularity has been sinking, the people said.
So far, Biden’s overture seems to have fallen flat. Democrats find themselves adrift, casting about for a compelling messenger.
Whoever that is, it’s not Biden, many party activists and donors contend. He’s tethered to the 2024 defeat and, at 82, is a symbol more of the party’s past than its future, they argue.
“Who’s going to want Joe Biden back in the game?” said a major Biden supporter, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk candidly about him.
A spokesperson for the DNC didn’t provide a comment or make Martin available for an interview.
A new NBC News poll shows that the Democratic Party’s popularity has dropped to a record low. Only 27% of registered voters said they held positive views of the party — the lowest figure in the network’s polling dating to 1990.
Former first lady Jill Biden is also prepared to campaign and raise money for fellow Democrats as she and her husband settle into life back home in Delaware, a person close to her said.
“She recognizes that serving in the capacities that she served is an honor and it comes with responsibilities to the party. And she’s prepared to help in any way she can,” the person said.
Both Bidens are carving out post-presidential lives aside from the partisan political work they’ve volunteered to take on.
Each plans to write a book. As Biden develops a theme for his memoir, he has been consulting former senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and senior White House advisers Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti.
He has been splitting his time between Delaware and Washington for meetings in office space supplied by the federal government. As was his habit as a U.S. senator, he often commutes via Amtrak.
The onetime first couple were shocked when President Donald Trump abruptly announced this week that he was ending Secret Service protection for their two adult children, Hunter and Ashley, the person close to Jill Biden said. They’d gotten no warning, another person familiar with the matter said. Their first question was whether their two children would be safe.
The Bidens have been out of office for only two months. After Trump’s first term ended in 2021, then-President Biden extended protection for Trump’s adult children for six months.
Though Biden is willing to help, Democrats aren’t unanimous in wanting them to. Some party activists believe Biden is an admired figure who remains a draw inside a grateful party.
Jane Kleeb, a vice chair of the DNC, said in an interview: “If you were to call any state party chair and ask them if they wanted Joe Biden to be a keynote speaker for their annual dinner, the answer would be yes. He is beloved by the party and beloved by the voters.”
Others argue that reminding voters of a 2024 campaign that went sour isn’t the best strategy for a party that is grasping for a message and searching for new, younger leaders. A CNN poll this month asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents which leader best reflects the party’s core values. Only 1% chose Biden.
What’s more, the wounds of 2024 are still fresh, with many Democrats aggrieved over Biden’s decision to run again and remain in the race until just a few months before the election, leaving Vice President Kamala Harris little time to organize a campaign of her own.
Alan Kessler, a longtime Democratic fundraiser from Philadelphia, said in an interview: “There are plenty of people in the Democratic Party who were obviously very frustrated with how things played out last year, but there are plenty of people who still love Joe Biden.”
At the “appropriate time,” Biden can be an asset to the party by campaigning in selected areas, such as his hometown, Scranton, Pennsylvania, but now isn’t it, Kessler added.
“It’s time to move on with new leadership,” he said.
If you ever doubted that Washington’s corrupt cartel of Democratic law firms, judges, NGOs, and deep-state bureaucrats is a machine designed to thwart the Trump administration, just watch as judge after judge blocks the president’s ability to keep his campaign promises.
It may not be brown paper bags changing hands, but this lawfare that defies the people’s will is every bit as corrupt.
It will be up to the Supreme Court to define the limits of presidential authority, but Chief Justice John Roberts’ preemptive scolding of Trump for musing about judicial impeachment doesn’t bode well for the president.
Trump won a resounding mandate in the November election, winning every swing state, the popular vote and both houses of Congress.
Democrats are rudderless, fighting each other and incapable of mounting an effective opposition.
So they are depending on the federal courts to be the “last bulwark against Trump,” as the New York Times puts it, celebrating the fact that almost 600 federal judges in courtrooms from Rhode Island to Seattle can issue emergency rulings to “stop the White House in its tracks.”
Politico has dubbed it the “court case presidency,” noting approvingly that “the courts have provided the only real opposition to Trump 2.0 so far.”
And so they have.
According to Attorney General Pam Bondi, judges issued more than 14 injunctions against Trump administration actions in February alone, with 160 “resistance” lawsuits winding their way through the system.
For example, we had Judge James Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, blocking the deportation of illegal alien criminals deemed a national security threat.
Judge Theodore Chuang, another Obama appointee, blocked DOGE’s dismantling of USAID, which turned out to be a slush fund for shady Democratic projects rather than a foreign aid agency.
The White House blasted “activist” federal judges and called on the U.S. Supreme Court to rein them in on Wednesday as President Donald Trump and his allies escalated their attacks against judges who have ruled against his administration.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters it was incumbent upon the Supreme Court to take action against judges who “are acting erroneously.”
“We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States. They are trying to clearly slow walk this administration’s agenda, and it’s unacceptable,” she said.
Her comments came a day after Trump called for the impeachment of Washington-based U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who issued an order temporarily banning the administration from removing migrants from the United States under an 18th-century law that the president invoked to proceed with the deportations. The comment drew a swift rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said an appeal, not impeachment, was the appropriate response when disagreeing with a judge’s decision.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump called Boasberg “a Radical Left Lunatic Judge” who “wants to assume the role of President.”
Other members of the administration including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller echoed Trump’s demand to hold the judge accountable, while tech billionaire Elon Musk complained about a different judge who has temporarily blocked the U.S. military from enforcing Trump’s executive order barring transgender people from military service.
“This is a judicial coup,” Musk said on his social media site X, calling for Congress to impeach judges.
The combative stance from the president and his team has raised concerns among some legal experts that the administration might openly defy a court order, possibly sparking a constitutional crisis. Under the U.S. Constitution, federal judges are part of a separate branch of government considered equal with the executive branch.
Trump said in an interview on Tuesday on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” that his administration would not defy any court orders and that he was confident the Supreme Court would rule in his favor in the case over the deported Venezuelans.
The administration is eager for the deportation case — and other legal fights — to go before the nation’s high court despite Roberts’ rebuke of Trump’s demand for judges to be impeached, a senior White House official with knowledge of the strategy said.
Roberts is part of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which includes three members appointed by Trump during his first term in office.
“We view Roberts stepping in as him saying he is an establishment guy, this is just against the D.C. code of ethics to call for impeachment of a judge. But he will ultimately be on our side, and he is,” the official said.
Trump’s administration has notched some important legal wins as it seeks to dramatically shrink the federal bureaucracy and cut foreign aid spending, but some of its major policy rollouts around immigration, spending, and social issues have stalled in court.
Judges have blocked Trump’s efforts to curtail automatic birthright citizenship for people born in the U.S., paused his freeze on trillions of dollars worth of financial assistance, and barred Musk’s cost-cutting effort from accessing sensitive Treasury Department systems.
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from taking any more steps to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, saying their efforts to close the foreign aid agency likely violated the U.S. Constitution.
The White House official acknowledged the unlikely odds against getting any judge impeached.
To remove a judge from office, the House of Representatives must pass articles of impeachment by a simple majority vote and then the Senate must vote by at least a two-thirds majority to convict the judge. Republicans control both chambers of Congress but do not have a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
Even so, some Republican leaders did not rule out congressional action.
A spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson said he “looks forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as they review all available options under the Constitution to address this urgent matter.”
Russell Dye, spokesperson for House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, said: “All options are on the table.”
“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?” ― Walter E. Williams, All It Takes Is Guts: A Minority View
“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.” ― Walter E. Williams
“How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people.” ― Walter E. Williams, All It Takes Is Guts: A Minority View
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 