President Donald Trump is not a fan of judges who oppose him. In his first semester, he famously assaulted Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sentenced ally and adviser Roger Stone, to a slaughter. Saying she is “completely biased” and “hatred” against both Trump and Stone.
Now, Trump only stepped up his attack on the judge. After the U.S. District Court, this hatred reached a new high Judge James Boasberg orders Trump administration to stop deporting certain Venezuelan immigrants. Boasberg also imposed timings on the government on flights from the United States to El Salvador, where immigrants were transferred to super prisons.
In response, Trump called Boasberg a “radical left madman who troublemakers and instigators.” At the concert Attorney General Pam Bondi said The judge “has no right” to ask about the flight. Trump administration officials and allies have used similar attack lines.
More information about Trump’s resentment towards the judge, Today, I explainedSean Rameswaram, co-host, spoke with Kate Shaw. She is a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Lawand co-host of legal podcasts Strict review.
Click the link below to listen to the entire conversation. Below are edited transcripts for length and clarity.
Kate, what happened to Trump and the judge?
Trump has performed very poorly in the lawsuit over the past two months. He is indeed on an impressive winning streak. He was zero in the Court of Appeal in order to defend the constitutionality of the executive order of citizens of his right to birth. He has been failing while challenging Elon Musk in every aspect of the government and Doge activities. So far, only two cases have arrived at the Supreme Court, both of which are very early procedural matters, and he has lost both.
He won several victories in the lower court, but mainly on procedural issues. So he lost a lot of things and was obviously really unhappy with it.
Of all the losses, perhaps the biggest controversy is this situation in El Salvador.
I think this is the person Trump is most excited about. This seems clear, right? Therefore, the government invoked the 1798 regulations: Alien enemy law. This was used three times during wartime: 1812, World War I, World War II.
Now, they are trying to propose a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Araguasomehow collaborates with the Venezuelan government to make them state actors with which we are essentially actively hostile. That’s it [reasoning] To invoke the old statute and allow the individual to be designated as an alien enemy and deported to this prison in El Salvador.
This is challenged, before Judge Boasberg. Some preliminary decisions have been made, but it is clear that the government will lose a lot of decisions before Judge Boasberg. I think this is based on his social media best.
He has realized the truth, basically demanding Boasberg improvisation. He calls him a radical left madman who troublemakers and inciteers. I don’t know this judge, but, no, this is not his exact feature.
President Obama was George W. Bush (George W. This is not a judge of the left-left lunatic in any way.
It’s a ridiculous feature, but based on this preliminary ruling calling for his impropriety, it’s a huge escalation in the way Trump has been talking about and acts on the judiciary.
Calling for judges to impeachment each – reserved for Justice Boasberg, or applies to many court struggles facing the Trump administration?
He has been criticizing federal judges. I think others, including Musk, call for other improvisations. I think this may be the first one Trump asked for [impeachment] He himself.
How does the judge fight back when the president or full-time official vice president calls for impeachment?
This is a good question, and judges are very limited in their abilities. They cannot access public-oriented communication channels. They don’t have a president’s pulpit. They can’t tweet, be rude, truth, or anything in their own defense. They have great power in very limited domains.
There is a defense in the court of public opinion, but then they may actually have to defend themselves in the actual U.S. Congress to avoid improvisation.
How often do we see the judge being impeached? Remind us.
rare. The federal judge had 15 impeachments. Only eight of them resulted in convictions.
Improving each is a two-step process. We say that if most Houses vote to approve one or more improvisation each, someone will be subject to improvisation each. It just takes a simple majority in the house, and then as the saying goes, we say this person is improvised.
But then they actually just went to the House of Congress, the Senate, and that’s where the actual trial was. In fact, two-thirds of the super tribute was needed in the Senate trial, which led to their removal.
Therefore, impropriation is the first half of the two-step process of the Constitution. In my opinion, we might see a federal judge actually doing a real impeachment process in the House, although the Senate 67 votes are hard to happen to me.
But this still works within legally acceptable boundaries. What if they were just publicly defiant of the court? This is the danger of this situation, with Boasberg and flights to El Salvador. Do we have specific evidence that it happened?
I don’t think so. I think we’re very close. [There’s] In this subtle dance before Judge Boasberg, the government does show that it fits into a narrow one – I think it may be wrong, but at least in language where the law sounds very defensive, that they are not bound by this order. Instead of breaking the order, they tried to obey the order.
So they at least didn’t say to the court: You have no power over us in nature. They may be a little closer. I think it’s important that they keep making legal arguments and they keep attracting people. I think in some ways, if they stop doing this and don’t comply at all, then the real red light starts to flash.
I think they are more likely to do so here in the context of the challenge of demolishing the orders from the U.S. Agency for International Development or the Department of Education or the law firm. The President’s power is always considered to be the highest in the place where national security is claimed, so they believe they have no power to advise the courts here, [compared to] Other spaces are obvious, and the courts have absolutely the power to review, perhaps invalidating what the administration does.
Interestingly, the source of this enormous executive power comes from Chief Justice John Roberts, who helped expand our view of the presidential powers of this country last year. But in this situation, especially in this battle between Trump and the Chinese judge Boasberg, there was some tension there.
Yes. So, as you just mentioned, the author of Roberts wrote this view, granting new authorities and immunity to the president and former presidents.
And, I think that almost everything we have seen in the last two months in enforcing the authorities’ luxury claims and disdain for any action that the court or any outside agency can take to examine the president in any way.
There is a straight line between some descriptions of presidential power Trump v. United States The case and the dilemma we find ourselves in. So I do think John Roberts is very responsible for the government’s way of doing it and broadcasts its vision of inherently unlimited execution.
Interestingly, Roberts came out after Trump [suggested] Regarding the Truth Society, boasberg should be sprung. Roberts posted this Very unusual statementsomewhat condemning President Trump.
The Chief Justice rarely gets involved in political struggles in any way. Therefore, he was obviously worried about speaking out loud.
Is there any response from the Trump administration?
I think there are things that are not generally named Roberts, which does suggest Trump likes to have the last sentence. perhaps [Roberts’s statement] Landing somehow. I don’t know the White House wants to fight John Roberts directly and explicitly. By the forefront, it does show that they still reside in the land of law in some ways. I think this is very important.
