Is this judicial tyranny? Yes! I lose compassion when I think of the devastating crimes, the rapes, murders by some of the illegals on innocent Americans; Federalist Papers # 78 says judge CANNOT!
Every one of these judges must be removed from the bench, disbarred and indicted with fraud and whatever else that can be shoved up their aggregate asses. Treason would be appropriate as purposeful interference without authority that endangers the Republic should be sufficient to insure none of them see freedom for the rest of their miserable fucking lives.
Exactly which is the problem with the majority in Congress who have been in House and Senate more than one or two terms and most of the bureaucrats and the majority of the SES Senior Executive Service, another creation of Jimmy Carter, nice guy, terrible POTUS.
Commander and Chief is head of the Judiciary. He should have a job evaluation meeting with this employee and discuss his duties as a judge. If he is not conducive to this, then it will be an episode of the apprentice..."You're Fired"!
74 or 78? You cite 78 above. Really doesn't matter though, all this section of the Federalist paper says is that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches. That doesn't mean the U.S. District Court Judges can't be bought and weaponized against the Executive Branch - which is what is happening here. Supreme Court likely will do nothing...Congress is the only answer as I mention below.
Yes he is Commander in Chief over the military, but sorry even though he is also Chief Executive and Chief Magistrate (Judicial), that only means he has the authority to admininstrate and enforce the laws of the land via his underlying agencies. As far as Judcial he nominates judges that fall under the 3rd branch Supreme Court for Congress to approve, so doesn't hire or fire them. Pure separation of powers. Congress however can "hire or fire" judges, which is what they are fixing to do.
Look, you are intelligent, many people here dont want to acknowledge this. They just want to have one KING governing the whole US, no branches, no constitution, nothing.
It's more like they don't know or understand the Constitution and that the federalist papers were 85 essays written about the discussions & arguments that took place to form the Constitution and were primarily meant to promote ratification of it. Taking a paragraph out of an entire essay would not necessarily provide an interpretation about this one issue. The founders gave several avenues for checks and balances, it is just that Article III has been misinterpreted to mean the judiciary has "lifetime" appointments for so long that it's going to take the Congress finally putting a resolution or some document out that explains it how it should be and that is they may hold office "during good behavior" - meaning interpreting the law correctly - not attempting to set partisan precedent with their decisions that abuses their role in the three equal branches set by the Constitution. Yes, they are the weakest, but that is not the hill to die on.
As I see it, the best way to address the overreach of these judges is to address their "bad" behavior. Congress can do that and it's been a discussion in the past, there was just not enough in office that were willing to take on the judiciary.
After he talked with many house members, Andy Biggs introduced a Resolution on 3/31/25. It has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary and there's not yet been a hearing set that I see, but it's a really good start IMO!...
This is why I'm not a liewyer..yes, the Judiciary is independent from the POTUS. A state judgment can be contested and put forth to the Federal Supreme Court to be judged upon. This is a safety so as the Constitutional rights are not trampled on by one of the three branches of government. That being said, does the constitution apply to none American citizens on American soil? I'm thinking it may as the reasoning of Guantonamo Bay was to apply non Constitutional methods on non American citizens. So this State Judge is stopping these none American people from deportation by applying American Constitutional Rights due to them being on American soil. Hmmm. So if you have a Judge who has been elected by the globalist Soros you now have rights for all world citizens to live in your country without vetting them. If the Supreme Court upholds this States judgement, I dare to say the American dream is dead.
Boasberg is not a State Judge, he's an originally Obama nominated D.C. District Court Judge, so not elected, just approved by the Congress after nomination. D.C. is not a State.
After being appointed to D.C. District Court he was assigned as Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA)...guess when? Yep 5/18/14-5/19/21 (remember the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax & FISA involvement 2016-2017?) and "Presiding" from 1/1/20-5/19/21...
During that time he also served as CHIEF Judge of the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court from 1/1/20-1/1/25, so somehow he got wiggled into that court while Trump was still (1st term) President - manipulation by who? And what for?...thought that came to my mind mind was possibly to ensure Terrorist's were NOT removed during Trump's Presidency including if he won in 2020, thinking Trump couldn't remove him, but since Biden ?won, he was kept on there to aid and abet during Biden Presidency...
And in between, somehow he was assigned CHIEF Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on 3/17/23. He also colluded with other judges.
Interesting huh??? Little bit of prior self-interest there, especially considering his Daughter's involvement with NGO providing legal help and training on how to avoid ICE, etc.? And how does any Judge have dual judgeships at the same time? IDK, but Julie Kelly and Mike Davis (& others) have been reporting this and more and provided advisement to Congress...mostly regarding impeachment, but pure removal by Congress is possible, so we'll see how that goes for Justice Roberts/SCOTUS. If that happens Boasberg will only be the first.
I don't think they have to have 2/3 Senate vote like impeachment if acting on Rep Biggs Resolution that I shared above in this thread. The way it was introduced is called a "Simple Resolution", so there is no action required of the President and can be introduced in either the House or the Senate. It also appears since it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for action (25R-19D) that only a majority would be necessary. Though it is stated it is to be "exhibited to the Senate". Not sure what that means since it's not an impeachment, so there would be no "impeachment" trial in the Senate. If the Senate does take it up separately then the Judiciary Committee there is 12R-9D, and I believe it would be a simple majority also., but will be watching to see how it evolves. Either way, yes any Republican on those committees voting against removal of Boasberg per that Resolution would be a traitorous move in itself. Would be something to pay attention to and give voice to.
I can't imagine Biggs didn't get a pre-quoram in the House and possibly in the Senate as well - before introducing this Resolution.
You should read it...pretty cut and dry and includes the FISA involvement.
LauraB, you should copy and move this up in the discussion as it is very interesting and could be viewed easily by others. 👍 Substack is great for progression of discussions but the interesting threads may gets lost.
Yeah I come late to the party sometimes, since the Doc likes to post 5x a day hard to get to them until there's too many to reply to. I know the Doc is off to the races on several others and only gets to the top comments. Just now getting to your reply lol.
I'll try and remember that in the future. Thanks s r!
No and you know that is not what I said. CiC is commander over the military. The President carries several hats, Chief Executive over the Executive Branch and all its underlying agencies of course, Commander in Chief over the military, Chief Magistrate who executes the laws of the land (Judicial meaning laws he can execute), and Chief over Foreign and Domestic Affairs. Make better sense?
Not true. There is no "head" of the Judiciary. The three branches are (supposed to be) equal. And a President is not Commander in Chief except in time of declared war.
I'm talking about what the law is, not what it has become in the hands of presidential tyrants of all stripes.
There's a mixing of apples and oranges here. Apples - Of the three branches, the 3rd branch head of Judiciary is the Supreme Court, below it are the federal courts. The first branch, Congress is who approves the President's nominations for judges - during his service, so every President nominates Federal and possibly Supreme Court Judges.
Oranges - The President is CiC over the military at all times, not just in declared war. It's why he nominates the Secretary of Defense and CoJC who heads the Pentagon and all forces, to be ready at CiC notice based on the President's foreign and domestic policies. Congress is who approves his nominations for SecDef & CoJC also.
Again CiC is a separate duty from Chief Executive and Chief Magistrate of the President, and there is a true separation of powers between Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Lower court Federal Judges just got the impression they were equal or "above" somehow But they are about to be reminded that they just interpret the law in their decisions (not make law), and if that interpretation would set precedent against any other law then it better be constitutional, and that they aren't supposed to be partisan, that they don't work for Soros or the DS, rather that they work for US via approval of our ELECTED Representatives. Enough said?
Absolutely infuriating!!!! Bought & paid for by Soros. This has got to stop now!!! Impeach & prosecute these judges that are blatantly going against the Constitution of the U.S.
"Titled "The Judiciary Department", Federalist No. 78 was published May 28, 1788, and first appeared in a newspaper on June 14 of the same year. It was written to explicate and justify the structure of the judiciary under the proposed Constitution of the United States;"
"The Federalist Papers, as a foundation text of constitutional interpretation, are frequently cited by U.S. jurists, but are not law."
"Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the job of determining whether acts of Congress are constitutional and what must be done if the government is faced with the things that are done on the contrary of the Constitution. "
"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestibly that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power;* that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and executive
"For I agree that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”† And9 it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such an union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches; and11 that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. By a limited constitution I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such for instance as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."
No surprise here. Allow the Fat Rat criminals (i.e., the criminals at the top) to remain free and this is what we should expect to get. Which is why I keep playing the same record over and over: "Unless and until Trump goes after and takes out the FAT RATS, we will **NEVER** be 'great' again." Believing otherwise is a delusion of epic proportions.
So, can anyone explain why Trump has *never once* taken out a single Fat Rat in over 1,530 days as POTUS? What is Trump waiting for, an invitation? This has the stench of rotten fish, and it provides strong support for my theory, namely, "Trump is with 'THEM', not with us".
Seriously, let me yell it out: WHY HASN'T TRUMP EVER TAKEN OUT A *SINGLE* FAT RAT CRIMINAL?
I have said all along to just ignore these rulings and do the job! Force the Communist lunatic left to take it to the Supreme Court and they will rule on what the Chief Executive of the Executive branch can legally do. Otherwise, nothing the administration does will stand for long.
Last shot Rodeo. Hang um High or they will crucify AMERICA. WAKE UP AMERICIA ~ NO MORE WIGGLE ROOM.
yes, we must stop this, we can via courts impeach...
Doc the courts don't impeach...Congress does. I just gave an update if you care to read.
Yes Paul. So true and enough with the Chess Games. Running out of time. Vigilance is key.
Every one of these judges must be removed from the bench, disbarred and indicted with fraud and whatever else that can be shoved up their aggregate asses. Treason would be appropriate as purposeful interference without authority that endangers the Republic should be sufficient to insure none of them see freedom for the rest of their miserable fucking lives.
REMOVE THE SEWER NOW!!!!
"interference without authority"
Good synonym for the "judiciary" according to the constitution and laws.
My sentiments exactly! They’re obviously paid off to rule in corrupt ways. Gotta go!
Exactly which is the problem with the majority in Congress who have been in House and Senate more than one or two terms and most of the bureaucrats and the majority of the SES Senior Executive Service, another creation of Jimmy Carter, nice guy, terrible POTUS.
Is he USA born citizen?? If not then DEPORT EM 🤔😳
Commander and Chief is head of the Judiciary. He should have a job evaluation meeting with this employee and discuss his duties as a judge. If he is not conducive to this, then it will be an episode of the apprentice..."You're Fired"!
federalist papers 74 says this. clear
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed74.asp
I cant find the word "judicial" in it.
74 or 78? You cite 78 above. Really doesn't matter though, all this section of the Federalist paper says is that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches. That doesn't mean the U.S. District Court Judges can't be bought and weaponized against the Executive Branch - which is what is happening here. Supreme Court likely will do nothing...Congress is the only answer as I mention below.
Yes he is Commander in Chief over the military, but sorry even though he is also Chief Executive and Chief Magistrate (Judicial), that only means he has the authority to admininstrate and enforce the laws of the land via his underlying agencies. As far as Judcial he nominates judges that fall under the 3rd branch Supreme Court for Congress to approve, so doesn't hire or fire them. Pure separation of powers. Congress however can "hire or fire" judges, which is what they are fixing to do.
Look, you are intelligent, many people here dont want to acknowledge this. They just want to have one KING governing the whole US, no branches, no constitution, nothing.
It's more like they don't know or understand the Constitution and that the federalist papers were 85 essays written about the discussions & arguments that took place to form the Constitution and were primarily meant to promote ratification of it. Taking a paragraph out of an entire essay would not necessarily provide an interpretation about this one issue. The founders gave several avenues for checks and balances, it is just that Article III has been misinterpreted to mean the judiciary has "lifetime" appointments for so long that it's going to take the Congress finally putting a resolution or some document out that explains it how it should be and that is they may hold office "during good behavior" - meaning interpreting the law correctly - not attempting to set partisan precedent with their decisions that abuses their role in the three equal branches set by the Constitution. Yes, they are the weakest, but that is not the hill to die on.
As I see it, the best way to address the overreach of these judges is to address their "bad" behavior. Congress can do that and it's been a discussion in the past, there was just not enough in office that were willing to take on the judiciary.
After he talked with many house members, Andy Biggs introduced a Resolution on 3/31/25. It has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary and there's not yet been a hearing set that I see, but it's a really good start IMO!...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/270/text?s=2&r=1
This is why I'm not a liewyer..yes, the Judiciary is independent from the POTUS. A state judgment can be contested and put forth to the Federal Supreme Court to be judged upon. This is a safety so as the Constitutional rights are not trampled on by one of the three branches of government. That being said, does the constitution apply to none American citizens on American soil? I'm thinking it may as the reasoning of Guantonamo Bay was to apply non Constitutional methods on non American citizens. So this State Judge is stopping these none American people from deportation by applying American Constitutional Rights due to them being on American soil. Hmmm. So if you have a Judge who has been elected by the globalist Soros you now have rights for all world citizens to live in your country without vetting them. If the Supreme Court upholds this States judgement, I dare to say the American dream is dead.
Boasberg is not a State Judge, he's an originally Obama nominated D.C. District Court Judge, so not elected, just approved by the Congress after nomination. D.C. is not a State.
After being appointed to D.C. District Court he was assigned as Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA)...guess when? Yep 5/18/14-5/19/21 (remember the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax & FISA involvement 2016-2017?) and "Presiding" from 1/1/20-5/19/21...
During that time he also served as CHIEF Judge of the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court from 1/1/20-1/1/25, so somehow he got wiggled into that court while Trump was still (1st term) President - manipulation by who? And what for?...thought that came to my mind mind was possibly to ensure Terrorist's were NOT removed during Trump's Presidency including if he won in 2020, thinking Trump couldn't remove him, but since Biden ?won, he was kept on there to aid and abet during Biden Presidency...
And in between, somehow he was assigned CHIEF Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on 3/17/23. He also colluded with other judges.
Interesting huh??? Little bit of prior self-interest there, especially considering his Daughter's involvement with NGO providing legal help and training on how to avoid ICE, etc.? And how does any Judge have dual judgeships at the same time? IDK, but Julie Kelly and Mike Davis (& others) have been reporting this and more and provided advisement to Congress...mostly regarding impeachment, but pure removal by Congress is possible, so we'll see how that goes for Justice Roberts/SCOTUS. If that happens Boasberg will only be the first.
This will definitely prove who's a rhino or not in senate if they vote against not taking him out.
I don't think they have to have 2/3 Senate vote like impeachment if acting on Rep Biggs Resolution that I shared above in this thread. The way it was introduced is called a "Simple Resolution", so there is no action required of the President and can be introduced in either the House or the Senate. It also appears since it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for action (25R-19D) that only a majority would be necessary. Though it is stated it is to be "exhibited to the Senate". Not sure what that means since it's not an impeachment, so there would be no "impeachment" trial in the Senate. If the Senate does take it up separately then the Judiciary Committee there is 12R-9D, and I believe it would be a simple majority also., but will be watching to see how it evolves. Either way, yes any Republican on those committees voting against removal of Boasberg per that Resolution would be a traitorous move in itself. Would be something to pay attention to and give voice to.
I can't imagine Biggs didn't get a pre-quoram in the House and possibly in the Senate as well - before introducing this Resolution.
You should read it...pretty cut and dry and includes the FISA involvement.
LauraB, you should copy and move this up in the discussion as it is very interesting and could be viewed easily by others. 👍 Substack is great for progression of discussions but the interesting threads may gets lost.
Yeah I come late to the party sometimes, since the Doc likes to post 5x a day hard to get to them until there's too many to reply to. I know the Doc is off to the races on several others and only gets to the top comments. Just now getting to your reply lol.
I'll try and remember that in the future. Thanks s r!
Very interesting 👌 👍
"Commander and Chief is head of the Judiciary. "
Eh?
No and you know that is not what I said. CiC is commander over the military. The President carries several hats, Chief Executive over the Executive Branch and all its underlying agencies of course, Commander in Chief over the military, Chief Magistrate who executes the laws of the land (Judicial meaning laws he can execute), and Chief over Foreign and Domestic Affairs. Make better sense?
Not true. There is no "head" of the Judiciary. The three branches are (supposed to be) equal. And a President is not Commander in Chief except in time of declared war.
I'm talking about what the law is, not what it has become in the hands of presidential tyrants of all stripes.
did you read federalists 74? I agree no POTUS is a God or Jesus etc.
There's a mixing of apples and oranges here. Apples - Of the three branches, the 3rd branch head of Judiciary is the Supreme Court, below it are the federal courts. The first branch, Congress is who approves the President's nominations for judges - during his service, so every President nominates Federal and possibly Supreme Court Judges.
Oranges - The President is CiC over the military at all times, not just in declared war. It's why he nominates the Secretary of Defense and CoJC who heads the Pentagon and all forces, to be ready at CiC notice based on the President's foreign and domestic policies. Congress is who approves his nominations for SecDef & CoJC also.
Again CiC is a separate duty from Chief Executive and Chief Magistrate of the President, and there is a true separation of powers between Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Lower court Federal Judges just got the impression they were equal or "above" somehow But they are about to be reminded that they just interpret the law in their decisions (not make law), and if that interpretation would set precedent against any other law then it better be constitutional, and that they aren't supposed to be partisan, that they don't work for Soros or the DS, rather that they work for US via approval of our ELECTED Representatives. Enough said?
Better double check that
Listen to Sen Kennedy. Its worth 6:14 of your time.
Really important. Gets into weeds a bit with Common Law stuff...
Here is the issue with Article III judge over reach and why all the universal TROs are literally made up from thin air and unconstitutional.
https://youtu.be/gmBDTA733PM?feature=shared
Yes...Congress decides based on prior law and as oversight, not the judiciary who is in bed with the clients. Biggs is addressing.
Absolutely infuriating!!!! Bought & paid for by Soros. This has got to stop now!!! Impeach & prosecute these judges that are blatantly going against the Constitution of the U.S.
YES!!!! All $atanic BS.
You are so on it. Exterminate these Evil Gross Disgusting Blood Sucking Putrid Entities.
Yes, I agree. They’re blatantly, in our faces, taking Soros money to do the DS bidding. No doubt.
These judges need to be removed from their office, this is clearly the demoncrats pulling their strings!
"Titled "The Judiciary Department", Federalist No. 78 was published May 28, 1788, and first appeared in a newspaper on June 14 of the same year. It was written to explicate and justify the structure of the judiciary under the proposed Constitution of the United States;"
"The Federalist Papers, as a foundation text of constitutional interpretation, are frequently cited by U.S. jurists, but are not law."
"Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the job of determining whether acts of Congress are constitutional and what must be done if the government is faced with the things that are done on the contrary of the Constitution. "
"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestibly that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power;* that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and executive
"For I agree that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”† And9 it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such an union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches; and11 that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. By a limited constitution I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such for instance as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."
(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0241)
Many people cite the section in the federal paper regarding the relative weakness of the judiciary, but its the OPPOSITE of what they think it means.
No surprise here. Allow the Fat Rat criminals (i.e., the criminals at the top) to remain free and this is what we should expect to get. Which is why I keep playing the same record over and over: "Unless and until Trump goes after and takes out the FAT RATS, we will **NEVER** be 'great' again." Believing otherwise is a delusion of epic proportions.
So, can anyone explain why Trump has *never once* taken out a single Fat Rat in over 1,530 days as POTUS? What is Trump waiting for, an invitation? This has the stench of rotten fish, and it provides strong support for my theory, namely, "Trump is with 'THEM', not with us".
Seriously, let me yell it out: WHY HASN'T TRUMP EVER TAKEN OUT A *SINGLE* FAT RAT CRIMINAL?
How is it judges are trying to override the President of the United States?
Wrong think. What do you think the job of the President is?
Do you think the President can do what he wants?
Pretty much. At least more than a judge
Tap into God or play a Crap Game. You will never win against God Almighty ~ Never
God Bless America ~ Amen
I have said all along to just ignore these rulings and do the job! Force the Communist lunatic left to take it to the Supreme Court and they will rule on what the Chief Executive of the Executive branch can legally do. Otherwise, nothing the administration does will stand for long.
Yeah they are only trying to find something to impeach him on. I wouldn't say ignore, but would Fight, Fight, Fight. And there's plenty to fight with.
A good strategy, I think.
What’s wrong with his eyes?
Time all these judges - and their districts - are put out to pasture for failing to adhere to the Constitution. Enough of their judicial activism.
Get rid of Pam Bondi. She’s been pretty much useless