Tea at Trianon: Curbing Judicial Obstruction with Impeachment

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

Curbing Judicial Obstruction with Impeachment

From Amuse on X:

The judiciary’s independence is sacrosanct, but it was never meant to be an unchecked autocracy. While Article III grants lifetime tenure to federal judges contingent on “good Behaviour,” it does not render them immune to consequences when they systematically abuse their power. Today, the increasing use of nationwide injunctions by activist judges has become a favored weapon of the Left to obstruct President Trump’s duly enacted policies, often without a clear constitutional or statutory basis. If unchecked, this trend threatens the balance of power between the branches of government. The Founders provided a remedy for judicial misconduct: impeachment. While removal by the Senate may be politically impossible, the process itself—lengthy, costly, and reputationally damaging—can serve as an effective deterrent against overreach. Republicans must be willing to wield impeachment strategically, not necessarily to remove but to punish and deter judges who act as unelected policymakers.
Hamilton, in Federalist No. 81, made clear that impeachment was intended as a check on judges who engage in “a series of deliberate usurpations” of the authority of the other branches. Judges who repeatedly issue nationwide injunctions against the executive branch are precisely such usurpers. A nationwide injunction is, in effect, a judicial veto on the president’s agenda. It allows a single unelected judge—often forum-shopped by left-wing litigants—to impose their policy preferences over the entire nation, circumventing the democratic process. While the Supreme Court has signaled skepticism toward this practice, lower courts continue to wield it aggressively.
A strategy of impeachment, even if the Senate does not convict, can curb this judicial activism. The moment a judge is impeached by the House, their professional life is consumed by defending their record. They must lawyer up, face grueling hearings, and endure the stain of impeachment on their legacy. Historically, even the threat of impeachment has influenced judicial behavior. In 1996, federal judge Harold Baer Jr. reversed his own controversial decision after bipartisan calls for his impeachment gained traction. Impeachment, therefore, serves as a powerful mechanism of accountability even without removal. (Read more.)

Alert the media. From Tierney's Real News:

If President Trump was a racist, why did he pick:
Marco Rubio, who is Cuban
Scott Turner, who is black
Kash Patel, who is Indian
Tulsi Gabbard, who is Samoan
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who is Mexican
If Trump was a misogynist, why did he choose:
Pam Bondi
Lori Chavez-DeRemer
Brooke Rollins
Linda McMahon
Kristi Noem
Tulsi Gabbard
Kelly Loeffler
Elise Stefanik
Susie Wiles
Karoline Leavitt
(Read more.)