Ah, Chief Justice John Roberts is stepping in once again to remind us all how very important judicial independence is—because apparently, if anyone so much as questions a judge’s ruling, democracy itself is on the brink of collapse.
This time, Roberts issued a rare statement defending the federal judiciary after President Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who blocked his administration from deporting illegal immigrants with alleged ties to a Venezuelan gang. You know, because holding a judge accountable for blatantly interfering in executive authority is just so out of line.
SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts just said President Trump’s call to impeach crooked federal judges is inappropriate.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal… pic.twitter.com/I6XAnut941
— George (@BehizyTweets) March 18, 2025
Let’s break this down. Federal Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee (shocking, I know), decided that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act—an actual wartime law—to deport 137 individuals linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was somehow unconstitutional.
So, in an act of judicial activism that would make the ACLU proud, Boasberg personally intervened to stop the deportation, ordering planes carrying these individuals to turn around mid-flight and come back to the U.S. That’s right, he effectively overruled the Trump administration’s efforts to remove potential criminals from American soil. Because why would we want to deport gang members? That would be mean.
JUST IN:@RepBrandonGill ignores Chief Justice John Roberts, moves to impeach Judge Boasberg anyway.
Why is Chief Justice John Roberts coming out against Trump for calling out the judge who tried to keep gang member illegals in the U.S.? pic.twitter.com/5X9WMEib3K
— 🇺🇸 Pismo 🇺🇸 (@Pismo_B) March 18, 2025
Naturally, President Trump didn’t take too kindly to this and went on Truth Social to call out Boasberg as a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge” and demand impeachment. And honestly, can you blame him? When unelected judges start overriding national security decisions, at what point do we admit that the judiciary has overstepped its role?
Of course, Roberts rushed to the judge’s defense, issuing a statement that impeachment “is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Ah, the classic nothing to see here response. According to Roberts, impeachment is only appropriate if a judge is caught robbing a bank or taking bribes—never mind the fact that rewriting immigration policy from the bench isn’t exactly in the job description.
But let’s not stop at Roberts. Elon Musk, now serving as a senior adviser to Trump, has been sounding the alarm on activist judges for months. Musk went as far as calling these judicial rulings part of an “attempted coup of American democracy by radical left activists posing as judges.” And honestly? He’s not wrong. It’s becoming a pattern—activist judges issue sweeping rulings to block conservative policies, knowing full well that appeals take time, and in many cases, the damage is already done before the higher courts can step in.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in the House are finally pushing back, introducing impeachment resolutions against at least three federal judges who seem to think their robes come with policymaking authority. Naturally, the judicial establishment is horrified. Judges Richard Sullivan and Jeffrey Sutton—both Republican appointees, mind you—warned that such attacks on the judiciary “strike at judicial independence.” Because, apparently, questioning a judge’s blatant overreach is far more dangerous than a judge dictating immigration policy from the bench.
Roberts’ pearl-clutching over “judicial independence” would be a lot more convincing if the courts weren’t so obviously stacked against Trump. After all, where was this concern when liberal judges were rubber-stamping unconstitutional COVID mandates or bending over backward to protect Biden’s executive overreach? Funny how judicial restraint only seems to matter when conservatives try to exercise lawful executive authority.
This isn’t about preserving the integrity of the courts—it’s about protecting the liberal judicial machine that has spent years undermining Trump’s policies. Roberts can issue all the sanctimonious statements he wants, but Americans see what’s happening. The question is, will Republicans finally do something about it?
The content in this feed is part of a partnership with IJR.com. While we strive for accuracy, the information presented here may change or be updated. This content does not constitute professional advice or endorsement.
