A “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge [Who] Should be Impeached.” Lawfare and the Rule of Law, By Chris Knight (Florida)

The hot topic at the moment is how lawfare by activist Left-wing US judges, is being used to de-rail the Trump presidency. A recent Atlantic Daily newsletter article, originally entitled "Defending the Umpires," rebuked President Donald Trump because of Trump's posted comments on X concerning federal judge James Boasberg. Trump called Boasberg a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge [who] should be impeached."

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/impeach_the_judges.html

Richard Blakley's article, "Impeach the Judges," published in The Atlantic Daily newsletter, is a scathing critique of what the author perceives as judicial overreach by several federal judges, particularly targeting Judge James Boasberg. Blakley's central argument is that activist judges, primarily appointed by Democratic presidents, are obstructing President Donald Trump's agenda—specifically his immigration and fiscal policies—through unconstitutional rulings, and that these judges should be impeached to restore democratic accountability and protect American citizens.

On March 15, 2025, Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump's attempt to deport thousands of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This act allows the president to detain or deport nationals of a country deemed an enemy during wartime or national emergency.

Blakley claims these deportees are dangerous gang operatives, including 137 deported under the Alien Enemies Act, 101 Venezuelans under Title VIII, and 23 MS-13 gang members, totalling 261 individuals. Boasberg ordered planes carrying these deportees to return to the U.S., a move Blakley deems an overreach.

Blakley cites a harrowing anecdote from a retired schoolteacher about a 15-year-old student who was brutally murdered by MS-13 gang members—nailed to a kitchen counter and skinned alive—after stealing an Xbox. This story is used to underscore the danger posed by such gangs and to argue that Boasberg's ruling protects "savage illegal aliens."

Blakley notes that a legal firm with ties to George and Alexander Soros's network is involved in the lawsuit against Trump's deportation efforts, framing this as a Left-wing conspiracy to undermine national security.

Blakley poses three rhetorical questions to Boasberg: (1) Is the U.S. Constitution for everyone in the world? (2) Are these illegal alien gang members U.S. citizens? (3) Do illegal aliens in the U.S. have rights under the U.S. Constitution?

He argues that the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens, citing its opening words, "We the People of the United States," and its purpose to "establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Therefore, he asserts, illegal aliens, especially criminals, have no constitutional protections and should not be shielded by the judiciary.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg, an Obama appointee, on March 18, 2025. Gill argues that Boasberg's ruling is "illegal and unconstitutional," accusing him of tying up Trump's resources in litigation to thwart the democratic mandate of 77 million voters. Gill compares Boasberg's order to return deportation flights to a judge directing troop movements or foreign policy, which he deems an abuse of power.

Blakley lists several other federal judges who he claims are obstructing Trump's agenda, all appointed by Democratic presidents:

Judge Paul Engelmayer (Southern District of New York, Obama appointee): Blocked Trump's audit of the Treasury Department payment system, denying Trump's lawyers the chance to argue.

Judge Angel Kelley (Massachusetts, Biden appointee): Issued a restraining order against NIH funding cuts, which aimed to cap university research overhead at 15 percent to reduce waste.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (District of Columbia, Obama appointee): Reinstated a fired Biden appointee, with a history of presiding over January 6 cases and the Russian collusion case.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (New York, Clinton appointee): Blocked Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing Treasury payment records and sentenced pro-life activists to prison, including a dying 77-year-old woman.

Judge George O'Toole Jr. (Massachusetts, Clinton appointee): Blocked Trump's federal employee buyout plan and his executive order on transferring men from women's prisons, aligning with Trump's "two sexes" policy.

Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales (New Mexico, Obama appointee): Blocked deportations of Venezuelan criminals to Guantanamo Bay.

Blakley argues that these judges are abusing their power to undermine Trump's policies, which include deporting criminals, cutting government waste, and enforcing sex-based policies.

Blakley notes that federal district judges earn $247,400 annually, nearly four times the average American salary. Impeaching all eight judges would save taxpayers $1,979,200 per year, framing this as a fiscal benefit alongside the restoration of democratic will.

Blakley criticises the original Atlantic Daily newsletter article, "Defending the Umpires," for rebuking Trump's call to impeach Boasberg. He suggests the title should be "Defending the Imps," implying that these judges are mischievous or malevolent actors rather than impartial judges.

Blakley's call to impeach these judges is rooted in a defence of democratic accountability, national security, and constitutional fidelity. His argument taps into broader concerns about judicial overreach, institutional bias, and the erosion of public trust.

Blakley's core argument is that judges like Boasberg are overstepping their authority, effectively nullifying the democratic will of 77 million voters who supported Trump's agenda. Trump's policies—deporting dangerous illegal aliens, cutting government waste, and enforcing sex-based policies—were central to his 2024 campaign. When judges block these initiatives, they interfere with the executive branch's ability to execute the voters' mandate.

Boasberg's order to return deportation flights mid-air is a dramatic intervention. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 grants the president broad authority to deport nationals of enemy states during emergencies. Trump's use of this act to target Venezuelan gang members, including MS-13 operatives, aligns with his national security platform. Boasberg's ruling, as Gill argues, resembles a judge directing troop movements, a clear overreach into executive powers. Article II of the Constitution vests the president with authority over foreign affairs and national security, which deportation of enemy aliens falls under.

Similarly, judges like Engelmayer (blocking Treasury audits), Kelley (blocking NIH cuts), and Kollar-Kotelly (blocking DOGE access) are thwarting Trump's efforts to reduce government waste, a key campaign promise. These rulings suggest a pattern of judicial activism that prioritises personal or ideological biases over the elected executive's agenda.

Blakley's anecdote about the MS-13 gang's brutal murder of a 15-year-old boy,highlights the real dangers posed by criminal gangs operating in the U.S. MS-13, a transnational gang originating in El Salvador, has been linked to numerous violent crimes, including murders, extortion, and drug trafficking. The FBI estimates that MS-13 has 10,000 members in the U.S., often recruiting vulnerable youth, as Blakley's story illustrates.

The influx of Venezuelan nationals, some affiliated with gangs like Tren de Aragua, has been a growing concern. A 2024 DHS report noted that Tren de Aragua has expanded operations in the U.S., engaging in human trafficking and violence. Deporting such individuals under the Alien Enemies Act is a legitimate national security measure, especially given Venezuela's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism by the Trump administration in 2019 (a designation that could justify invoking the act).

By blocking these deportations, Boasberg is potentially allowing dangerous individuals to remain in the U.S., endangering communities. Blakley's argument that Boasberg should be arrested for "obstructing justice" is suggestive, but the underlying concern—that judicial intervention is compromising public safety—is valid. The Soros connection raises questions about external influences on the judiciary, further eroding trust in its impartiality. There is a lesson here for other jurisdictions, such as Australia.

Blakley's constitutional argument—that the U.S. Constitution applies only to citizens, has legal grounding. The Constitution's preamble, "We the People of the United States," indeed frames the document as a compact among American citizens. While the Supreme Court has extended certain rights to non-citizens, particularly those legally present, under the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses (e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 1982, granting undocumented children access to public education), these cases are special and limited, and not applicable to dangerous gang bangers, and in any case, need reconsideration themselves.

For illegal aliens, especially those engaged in criminal activity, constitutional protections are very limited. In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal, and thus do not require the same due process protections (e.g., Miranda rights). The Alien Enemies Act further empowers the president to bypass standard procedures during emergencies, as seen in its use during World War II to intern Japanese Americans (a controversial but legally upheld action at the time in Korematsu v. United States, 1944).

Blakley's questions to Boasberg, whether the Constitution applies to everyone, whether gang members are citizens, and whether illegal aliens have rights, highlight a key tension. If illegal aliens lack full constitutional protections, Boasberg's ruling may indeed overstep by prioritising their "rights" over national security. Impeachment could be seen as a mechanism to hold judges accountable for rulings that defy constitutional intent and public safety.

Blakley's list of other judges—Engelmayer, Kelley, Jackson, Kollar-Kotelly, O'Toole, and Gonzales—suggests a systemic issue of judicial activism, particularly among Democratic Leftist appointees. There's a legitimate concern about judges using their lifetime appointments to push ideological agendas.

Blocking Trump's Treasury audit without allowing his lawyers to argue raises questions about due process for the executive branch. Audits are a standard tool for ensuring fiscal accountability, and obstructing them undermines transparency.

Trump's cap on university research overhead at 15 percent aligns with his waste-cutting agenda. Kelley's intervention, especially given her self-proclaimed DEI focus, suggests a bias toward progressive priorities (e.g., university funding) over fiscal restraint.

Sentencing a dying 77-year-old pro-life activist to prison, with a mocking comment about her religion, indicates a lack of judicial impartiality. Blocking DOGE's access to payment records further hampers Trump's efficiency efforts.

These examples support Blakley's call for impeachment by illustrating a pattern of judges prioritising personal or political beliefs over the law. Article III of the Constitution allows for impeachment of judges for "high crimes and misdemeanours," which some interpret to include gross abuses of power. If these judges are indeed acting against the public interest, impeachment could be a necessary check on judicial overreach.

Blakley's economic argument—that impeaching these judges would save taxpayers $1,979,200 annually—is a practical point, though secondary to the constitutional and security concerns. More compelling is his emphasis on democratic accountability. Federal judges, with lifetime appointments, are insulated from public oversight, yet their rulings have profound impacts on policy and safety.

Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism (Article I, Sections 2 and 3) to ensure judges remain accountable. If judges like Boasberg are seen as obstructing a democratically elected president's agenda—especially on issues as critical as national security—the threat of impeachment can serve as a deterrent. Blakley's argument that these judges are "attacking" the will of 77 million voters resonates with those who see the judiciary as an unelected elite thwarting democracy.

Richard Blakley's "Impeach the Judges" makes a provocative but defensible case for holding federal judges accountable through impeachment. His focus on Judge James Boasberg's ruling to block Trump's deportation of Venezuelan gang members, including MS-13 operatives, highlights a real tension between judicial power and national security. Blakley's broader critique of other judges—Engelmayer, Kelley, Jackson, Kollar-Kotelly, O'Toole, and Gonzales, suggests a pattern of activism that undermines Trump's agenda and the democratic will. His concerns about judicial overreach, public safety, and institutional bias are grounded in legitimate issues.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/impeach_the_judges.html

"On March 15, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order to block Trump's rightful efforts to deport thousands of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act. These foreign gang operatives are part of a dangerous infiltration campaign to destabilize American communities.

I interviewed a former schoolteacher from a school located near where MS-13 gang members hang out. The teacher stated that a student around 15 years old became entangled with this gang and stole an Xbox from them. The gang hunted the boy down, nailed his hands to his mother's kitchen counter, and proceeded to skin the boy alive. Horrified, the schoolteacher retired.

Any "lunatic" who would fight mere deportation of such savage illegal aliens should be arrested for obstructing justice. Boasberg is seeking to harass and bushwhack Trump's efforts to rid our country of illegal alien criminals.

Not surprisingly, a legal firm with "deep ties" to George and Alexander Soros's network of left-wing organizations (NGOs) is partially behind the lawsuit trying to block Trump from deporting illegal alien gang members. Boasberg demanded that airplanes in international airspace turn around and bring the illegal aliens back to the United States. The planes contained 261 illegal aliens, including 137 deported under the Alien Enemies Act, 101 Venezuelans deported via Title VIII, and 23 MS-13 gang members.

Boasberg is demanding that Trump's DOJ answer five questions. Instead, I have three questions for Boasberg:

1) Is the U.S. Constitution for everyone in the world?

2) Are these illegal alien gang members U.S. citizens?

3) Do illegal aliens in the U.S have rights under the U.S. Constitution?

If Boasberg answers anything other than "no" to the three questions above, then not only does he need to be impeached, but he also needs to be disbarred.

The first seven words of U.S. Constitution state, "We the People of the United States," and the last nine words of the first paragraph say "establish this Constitution for the United States of America." So the U.S. Constitution is for "we the people" who are citizens of the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect people who enter the United States illegally, because they're not American citizens. Criminal illegal aliens entering the U.S., aren't protected by U.S. laws, and thus aren't protected by the U.S. judicial system.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) filed articles of impeachment against the Obama-appointed Judge Boasberg. Gill stated on X that Boasberg's order is

illegal and unconstitutional. ... The purpose of Judge Boasberg's unconstitutional ruling is to tie up President Trump's time and resources in litigation, stopping him from executing on the democratic mandate voters gave him. The ruling is a fundamental attack on our democratic system. Judge Boasberg directing deportation flights to turn around midair and return to the United States is tantamount to a Circuit Court Judge directing troop movements abroad or directing the Executive how to conduct foreign policy. It's illegal and unconstitutional. Time to impeach.

On February 12, 2025, Rep. Eli Cane (R-Ariz.) introduced articles of impeachment against Southern District of New York judge Paul Engelmayer, another Obama appointee. Engelmayer's ruling "forbade all political appointees, including the Treasury Secretary from accessing Department of Treasury data," going against the will of 77 million voting citizens of the United States of America and shutting down the audit of Treasury Department payment system. Trump's lawyers "weren't allowed to argue" — "they weren't even in the room" — when this ruling was made.

Other district court activist judges are also attacking the Trump administration. District court judge Angel Kelley of Massachusetts, appointed by Joe Biden boasting that "DEI was a factor in her appointment," allowed a restraining order against National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts. The Trump administration, trying to slash waste, capped things like "overhead" expenses at 15% on university research. Judge Kelley, with her history of controversial decisions, stepped in on their behalf.

District court judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia reinstated the fired head of the Office of the Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee. She has a record of partisan attacks on President Trump and other Republicans. She presided over numerous January 6 U.S. Capitol riot cases and presided over the Russian collusion case. She was appointed by Barack Obama.

District court judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of New York, a Bill Clinton appointee, stood against Trump's efforts to cut government waste by blocking DOGE from "obtaining access to certain Treasury Department payment records," including 90% of federal payments. She sentenced seven pro-life activists to federal prison, including a dying 77-year-old woman. Mocking God, Kotelly told the woman to "make every effort to stay alive" as part of the "tenets of your religion."

District court judge George O'Toole, Jr. of Massachusetts, nominated by Bill Clinton, blocked Trump's federal employee buyout plan, even after 65,000 federal workers had accepted the offer. He also blocked the transfer of men from women's prisons to men's prisons, in direct violation of Trump's executive order declaring "two sexes."

District court judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of New Mexico, a Barack Obama appointee and having a history of political positions in the courtroom, blocked deportations of Venezuelan criminals to Guantanamo Bay.

Congress must impeach activist judges abusing U.S. law. Federal judges can be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate.

Having a lifetime appointment, the salary of a district judge is $247,400, which is almost four times the salary of the average American, and these judges take their salary from the wages of the average American taxpayer. If all eight activist judges were impeached, Congress would save the American taxpayer $1,979,200 per year.

Instead of "Defending the Umpires," the Atlantic's article's title should have been "Defending the Imps.""