Chief Justice Roberts' Remarks on Threats to Judges

In 2020, the Chief Justice condemned Senator Schumer's "dangerous" remarks.

In March 2020, Chief Justice Roberts issued the following statement after Senator Schumer and others held a rally in front of the Court.

This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that "You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.

Here is how the statement was covered by Politico and the AP.

Comments

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Good thing those threats never turned into an assassination attempt on Kavanaugh or protests outside their residences...

[BBSquatter]

That would have been horrific. It would have undoubtedly been followed by an assassination attempt on a former US President, and possibly the US Secret Service fumbling their duties in protecting same, and, and, and....

[QuantumBoxCat]

He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Same when:

- You're saving the planet from climate change
- You're saving Democracy
- You're protecting black lives from White violence

[Lee Moore]

Or declaring independence from wicked old King George. Not to mention fighting the old coot with actual muskets.

[David Nieporent]

Remember all those gunshots fired at Kavanaugh?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I will bet $100 that if I were to go through your entire comment history I would not find the name Esther Salas once.

[EllaWilson]

The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing great mischief in the state. Congress may decide amiss without destroying the union, because the electoral body may cause it to retract its decision. But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent or bad men, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war. -Yates

[Dr. Ed 2]

I may not be a brilliant attorney, but I can tell the difference between encouraging violence and encouraging a legislative process.

Impeaching these judges is not endangering their lives.

And as to the latter, where are we with the SCOTUS leak? Boston's Howie Carr hinted he knew who it was.

[ReaderY]

The constitution provides for impeachment for “high crimes and misfemeanors.”

Making a judicial ruling one disagrees with is neither.

Eliminating one of the constitution’s core checks on the executive is an invitation to lawlessness. If the Executive Branch becomes violent, there is no check on it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exercising jurisdiction you do not have and denying the party the right of an appeal are grounds for impeachment.

Eliminating the Constitution's core check on the judiciary is an invitation to lawlessness. If the Judicial Branch becomes Fascist, violence becomes the only check on it.

[neurodoc]

Do you have any convincing examples to cite of Fascism in our courts, especially the federal ones?

[Stephen Lathrop]

neurodoc — Do you have any convincing examples to cite of Fascism in our courts, especially the federal ones?

Absent effective process in the next few days to intervene against this El Salvador rendition scheme, it will deliver such an example.

Recent events at the United States Institute of Peace look fascistic. That seems an ongoing confrontation, not yet completely described. On the basis of present information, it looks like a case in which DOGE operatives used armed force to gain entry into a private non-profit, then locked out the private staff in charge of the facility. That was apparently done without a court order, without a warrant, without any claim of exigent necessity, and without disclosing any purpose for doing it.

More generally, a DOGE/Trump tactic to strip government departments of capacity to fulfill responsibilities mandated by Congress, and thus fail, serves to open DOGE/Trump's way to bypass court review. It is plainly intended as a means to revolutionize government by resort to new legislation passed under duress of that deliberately induced failure.

That would be fascistic. Metaphorically, it's as fascistic as burning down the Reichstag, and serves an identical purpose—to use intimidation to free the administrative state from constraints by courts and legislators.

On the present apparent schedule, I doubt this nation will go another month before seeing street demonstrations numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Court interventions could slow that down, and I hope they do. The pace of deterioration has become frightening.

It seems like your question is askew. It is not properly a question whether the courts are fascistic; it is instead a question where are the courts, while DOGE/Trump lunge for fascistic control?

It looks past time for a judicial conference, with attendance reaching from the lowest level of the federal judiciary up to and including the full Supreme Court. The aim ought to be to cow with unified threats of severe punishments any further fascistic attempts by Trump, his confederates, underlings, attorneys, and associated hackers and thugs.

They must all understand a need to submit to ordered process as the only means to accomplish their ambitions for government change. Or if they can not be persuaded to understand it, they must be taught by swift action to fear personally the consequences of continuing to try.

Reducing government to ruins as a method to force political compliance cannot be accepted as a lawful means. People who try to do it must be warned, then punished if they persist. The courts ought to be unified on that, with publicly expressed readiness to confront a constitutional crisis unlike any previously seen in this nation.

[DixieTune]

Wrong. It provides for impeachment for Presidents, Vice Presidents and other executive positions for "high crimes and misdemeanors." For judges, the standard is "good behavior."

Usurping authority because "orange man bad" is not good behavior.

[Martinned2]

So I assume you're also angry that Trump talked about impeachment even though he has no power over impeachment whatsoever?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Making a judicial ruling one disagrees with is neither."

Says you. Congress ultimately gets to decide what is a high crime or misdemeanor. Impeaching a judge for something you don't think is a high crime or misdemeanor is no more unconstitutional than a judge making a ruling you don't like.

[Life of Brian]

The constitution provides for impeachment for “high crimes and misfemeanors.”

Making a judicial ruling one disagrees with is neither.

Your sincere belief is that there is no ruling whatsoever that a judge could make that would reach that level? Nothing?

That's pretty damn scary.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There’s no “official act” the president can do that can count as a crime so sure, why not?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Official acts can be impeachable though.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is certainly correct. I think it would clearly be impeachable for a judge to order the president to nuke San Francisco, for example. And the President clearly should defy such an order.

So maybe it would be more productive to discuss when a judicial decision is impeachable.

And to discuss when a judicial order should be defied. I haven't heard anybody discussing when a judicial order should be defied, just that they should never be defied, which is clearly absurd.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's actually a good question, and a hard one.

Part of the problem here is that the judiciary, (I'm looking at you, Roberts!) are showing basically no interest in policing their own behavior. The Supreme court should have already acted on the issue of these TRO's and nation-wide injunctions. Perhaps they shouldn't have acted to the liking of the Executive branch, but they SHOULD have acted.

But in keeping with the Supreme court's current policy of letting things fester until hopefully the patient dies of gangrene without forcing the Court to do any work, the Court isn't doing anything one way or the other. Well, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.", Roberts, and you've chosen badly.

To answer your question, a judicial order should be defied when a judge over-reaches the judiciary's proper jurisdiction, and attempts to decide something that isn't up to judges. Judges, of course, are inclined to think that's the null set. It isn't.

The judicial branch is highly dependent on the other two branches giving a damn about their rulings. I think they've edged into forgetting that.

Yes, I know I haven't propounded a rule that leads to an obvious conclusion in the immediate case. It's not clear to me who's right in the immediate case. What is clear is that the judiciary, or some segment of it, are in the process of walking out over a cliff, coyote style, and just haven't looked down yet.

[David Nieporent]

To answer your question, a judicial order should be defied when a judge over-reaches the judiciary's proper jurisdiction,

That's literally true, but I am confident that your conception of it is not. A court order issued in the absence of all jurisdiction is a nullity, and thus people are free to disobey it without consequence. But you don't actually mean when the order is outside the court's jurisdiction; you just mean when you don't like the order.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not always true, as in US v. United Mine Workers.

But even if a court has jurisdiction to order the President to nuke San Francisco, the President should defy the order. So jurisdiction shouldn't be the only test.

[David Nieporent]

I may not be a brilliant attorney,

You can say that again!

[neurodoc]

Wait a second, David N. Dr. Ed 2, The Talking Horse's Behind, is not just not a "brilliant attorney," he is one of the loudest stupidest, "IANALs" here, that is to say HE ISN'T A LAWYER AT ALL, not even a paralegal, not a legal aide, he's a LEGAL NOTHING! And since Trump returned to office less than 60 days ago, he has been stupider, more offensive and uglier than ever before. Don't afford Dr. Ed 2, the Horse's Talking Behind any more respect respect than he has ever earned, which is next to zero! Do you disagree with me about him and His Boy Donnie?

[Riva]

Even worse, Roberts' thoughtless comments will only embolden more bad judicial behavior. Really first class, dumb ass thing for a justice, let alone chief justice, to say.

[ReaderY]

It is absolutely unconstitutional to impeach a judge for making a ruling one doesnmt like. You’re characterization of the judge’s actions here as bad, like Trump’s, is complete bullshit. It is frankly no different from calling your neighbor a criminal for having a wife you think you should have. You and Trump are the criminal here, willing to cut through our Constitution and our laws to achieve a result that NEITHER entitle you to have.

The judge’s ruling was coreect. Even if the Enemy Alien Act applies, and it doesn’t by its own terms enemy aliens in this country who have not committed any crimes have to be given a reasonable time after the Presidential proclamation to dispose of their affairs and leave voluntary, “consistent with national hospitality and humanity.” President Trump’s attempt to keep the proclamation secret so he could seize people and spirit them out of the country in the middle of the night is expressly prohibited by its terms. It was a defiance of the express limitations on the power Congress granted him under the Enemy Alien Act, even if the Enemy Alien Act applies (and it doesn’t.) Even by the administration’s own legal theory, Federal courts have jurisdiction over enemy alien removal under Section 23 of the Enemy Alien Act, and it was frankly their duty to enjoin his complete disregard of Section 22 of that Act and order him to comply with it.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>It is absolutely unconstitutional to impeach a judge for making a ruling one doesnmt like.

These judges don't exist in the Constitution, my dude.

[Caphon]

They do, and are referred to as the inferior courts in Article III that Congress has the power to establish. As civil officers, the judges of those inferior courts are subject to the same impeachment process as outlined for Congress in the Constitution - misbehavior, high crimes, treason, etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"An impeachable offense is anything that a majority of the House says it is." -- Gerald Ford...

[Riva]

To impeach a judge for grossly and irresponsibly interfering with executive branch authority on national security/foreign policy matters is absolutely 100 % Constitutional. Guess what bunky? Congress could impeach Roberts too it they wanted. I wish they would.

[neurodoc]

You're another "IANAL," right?

[Riva]

Well you're obviously not a lawyer and certainly, based on your response, not a neurosurgeon (they're actually smart). IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO IMPEACH A JUDGE FOR ILLEGAL OVERREACHING ORDERS ENCROACHING ON CORE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AUTHORITY. These activist judges are disgracing themselves and the reputation of the federal judiciary.

[David Nieporent]

YES IT IS AND THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING ANYWAY SINCE THE PRESIDENT'S CORE AUTHORITY IS INCREDIBLY LIMITED UNDER THE ACTUAL U.S. CONSTITUTION.

[ReaderY]

Our Constitution gives the power to regulate immigration and determine when aliens can be deported to Congress, not the President. The President has only that power that Congress grants him by statute. While it has granted him a great deal of power and discretion, its grant is not unlimited. The Alien Enemy Act in particular imposes, by its terms, specific limitations on the President’s discretion, including a definition of what an “enemy alien” is and a requirement in Section 22 that enemy aliens who haven’t committed crimes be given a “reasonable” amount of time to settle their affairs and voluntarily depart. Section 23 is a grant of jurisdiction to courts.

So yes, courts have every right and indeed a duty to entertain petitions for writs of habeas corpus by people claiming they are not enemy aliens and in any event haven’t committed any crimes. And if the Administration tries to avoid a habeas corpus proceedijg by spiriting them out of the country, they have every right, as in any habeas corpus proceeding, to restrain the people who have the corpus and order them to produce it.

President Trump’s claim that a President has some sort of inherent authority to deport aliens or that courts have no jurisdiction over the matter is complete bullshit. He has no authority whatsever in the matter other than the authority Congress chooses to give him.

“CORE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AUTHORITY” my ass. Complete bullshit. Try reading the Constitution. The President has no authority whatsover to either refuse to admit or to deport an alien unless, and only to the extent, Congress tells him he can.

[neurodoc]

Your correct that I am not a neurosurgeon, I am a neurologist, one certified in this medical specialty by the American Board of Psychiatry an Neurology. (Think of the difference in postgraduate training and areas of practice between cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons, which is roughly analogous). That this is in fact so could be readily confirmed if I were to give you my name, but I am not going to do that. You can, however, confirm it by asking EV to do so, since we have known each other casually for more than a decade. (Same with DB.)

Similarly, it can through EV's and DB's 2nd party intermediacy be confirmed that I, unlike you, am a law graduate of Georgetown and a practicing attorney.

Now this board would be improved if you took your uneducated IANAL ass elsewhere, or at least spare us your multifold stupidities, like, "IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO IMPEACH A JUDGE FOR ILLEGAL OVERREACHING ORDERS ENCROACHING ON CORE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AUTHORITY. These activist judges are disgracing themselves and the reputation of the federal judiciary." Why not just leave them to your criminal MAGA cult leader?

[David Nieporent]

Think of the difference in postgraduate training and areas of practice between cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons, which is roughly analogous

That didn't actually enlighten me any.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You're another "IANAL," right?"

Dude, there are sites that specialize in that.

[neurodoc]

Not this one, at least not by original intent.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is absolutely constitutional to impeach a judge for absolutely anything a majority of the House feels like impeaching over.

[DixieTune]

I wouldn't be surprised if the judges held their own impeachment to be unconstitutional...

[neurodoc]

You're another of the IANALs here, right?

[David Nieporent]

It is absolutely constitutional to impeach a judge for absolutely anything a majority of the House feels like impeaching over.

It is absolutely not. It is not justiciable, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is literally the job of the House to decide what does and doesn't justify impeachment, which is why it's not judiciable.

Save by the Senate, of course.

[David Nieporent]

No, Brett. If a majority of the House said, "We're impeaching so-and-so because we're bored today and there's nothing good on TV," that decision could not be overruled by anyone, but that would not make it constitutional.

[Commenter_XY]

Surely, you jest. Impeachment is a political act. The House can impeach any art 1,2,3 officer for any reason they like, provided a majority vote for it. What 'un'constitutional?

You need 218 votes (majority). That is what the Constitution says.

[David Nieporent]

Way to not read what I wrote. I don't jest, and don't call me Shirley.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It is absolutely not. It is not justiciable, but that doesn't make it constitutional."

It's unconstitutional in the same sense that it's unconstitutional for judges to make rulings that Trump doesn't like.

[Riva]

Crazy Dave is confusing the unfortunately accepted practice not to impeach judges for outrageous rulings for a constitutional barrier. It is in no way unconstitutional. There is nothing in the text of the constitution that forbids it. And allowing judges to continue their present abuses can absolutely be construed by Congress as bad behavior meriting removal. Like most constitutional issues (separation of powers comes to mind ), crazy Dave is again wrong.

As for what is justiciable in general, the judicial insurrectionists don’t seem to recognize any limitations on their power. I would fully expect a nut burger DC hack judge to issue a TRO against any judicial impeachment. Insurrectionists don’t usually let themselves be removed from power. Otherwise they probably wouldn’t have started the insurrection in the first place.

[ConservativeProfessor]

I don't think their objection to the judge's opinion is because they "don't like it," but that the judge has exceeded his judicial powers. "Liking it" doesn't at all seem like the right category.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This was 5 years ago and Democrats, having been cautioned, haven't tried it again, even after Trump did far worse on 1/6/21.

It's clear that Trump will continue to call for impeachment, even as to people who can't be impeached, as he has for years, no matter what C.J. Roberts said today.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Democrats are out there, today, firebombing Tesla's of random, innocent people in order to terrorize the public. They even built websites with Tesla owners and dealerships doxxed and encouraging "creative prostesting" e.g. classic Leftwing terrorism

[David Nieporent]

Democrats are out there, today, firebombing Tesla's

Were they wearing their "Kiss me, I'm a member of the DNC" buttons when they did this?

[TwelveInchPianist]

As yes, the old "the j-sixers were totes antifa" argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fortunately, we have a DOJ now that is actually interested in getting to the bottom of things like this. So the left's MO that was honed to perfection under DOJs that could be counted on to look the other way is, hopefully, not going to work out very well.

Still sucks for anybody who gets firebombed or SWATTed, though.

[Sarcastr0]

The left's MO.

Paranoia in service of a partisan police state. I'm sure the CEO of Antifa is shaking in xer boots.

Another time Brett comes down on the side of the authorities.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, against people conspiring to commit domestic terrorism, anyway.

[DixieTune]

Fortunately, my Model Y is protected by an AR15.

[Martinned2]

I think it's your patriotic duty as an American to go buy another Tesla.

[Sarcastr0]

So the latest from quite a few on here seems to be 'I can't be mad at this, I gotta be mad at the LIBS 6 YEARS AGO!'

That's not a very sustainable tactic.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

But, Ruth did something wrong! You are owned, libs!

[ConservativeProfessor]

If the Chief had not been such a coward in not reining in these rogue district court judges we wouldn't be in the very mess he is now lamenting.

Impeachment is most certanly a legitimate way to deal with judges who exceed their enumerated powers. The idea that a federal distict judge can order the President---the commander in chief---to return to American soil a plane full of vile terrorists is an impeachable offense. It's lawless.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why are you invoking the commander-in-chief clause when this was a civilian plane and a civilian law enforcement action? How do you know that they are vile terrorists? Did you attend a hearing or something where the government established that fact?

Also did you have a problem the last several year where district judges were making orders against Biden or against federal legislation that the Supreme Court determined was unlawful?

[David Nieporent]

Did you attend a hearing or something where the government established that fact?

The govt submitted a declaration on Monday night admitting it didn't have specific information about each person it deported, and arguing that its lack of information proved that it was right to deport them!

[neurodoc]

Another IANAL, right?

[BTW, besides the MD plus MPH and certifications by the ABPN and ABPM, I am one of those unfortunate Hoya alumni who the Dotard-in-Chief chose to be DC's USA says will not be hired as attorneys or in any other capacity because of the DEI stuff at GULC. But honestly, I can't recall any DEI teachings there >30 years ago.]

[Josh R]

Not a single commenter reacted as I did to Adler's post. It was a rejoinder to Blackman's admonishment that Roberts doesn't condemn Democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

I assume for many that went without saying.

Subtweets need not be subtle.

[neurodoc]

In the >235 years since we have been doing this US Constitution thing, my understanding is that we have only impeached 15 federal judges, and some of them were out-and-out crooks, like Nixon-if-the-President-does-it-then-it's-legal maintained. So how often is that, every 15 years on average. And as it happens, "The House last impeached a federal judge in 2010, when U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous was impeached on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury."

[Thought about __ all my life]

Judge Roberts is not going over well with people.His 'opinion' on Trump looks exactly like a man bypassing the Court in order to be the Court. Either bring it to Court like a decent human being or shut thy mouth, hypocrite.

[Martinned2]

Yes, Trump and his followers don't like it when they're criticised. We knew that already.

[neurodoc]

In the >235 years since we have been doing this US Constitution thing, my understanding is that we have only impeached 15 federal judges, and some of them were out-and-out crooks, like Nixon-if-the-President-does-it-then-it's-legal maintained. So how often is that, every 15 years on average. And as it happens, "The House last impeached a federal judge in 2010, when U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous was impeached on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury."