Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges

[Moonglow]

False accusation, fixed court, biased judge. Joe did the same thing and got off because he's basically brain dead according to an idiot judge. Our legal system is infected with Marxist/Democrat, parasite judges. The Congress has the power to eliminate their courts and I hope they do.

THe GOP lacks the votes

 

[Moonglow]

Trump isn’t Biden. Things are changing. Buck up son, change is here and you Marxies are no longer relevant.

I bet you dance as poorly as you post.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

False accusation, fixed court, biased judge. Joe did the same thing and got off because he's basically brain dead according to an idiot judge. Our legal system is infected with Marxist/Democrat, parasite judges. The Congress has the power to eliminate their courts and I hope they do.

No, congress does not and will not.

 

[Street Juice]

Alternatively: Congress could create a new circuit specifically with jurisdiction to hear government cases, or the Trump Admin could just, you know, obey the law.

Or, we could go back to the kind of democracy where, you know, the people's will were respected and tell these judges they aren't the all-powerful autocrats they think they are.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Or, we could go back to the kind of democracy where, you know, the people's will were respected and tell these judges they aren't the all-powerful autocrats they think they are.

When did that exist, please?

 

[Street Juice]

When did that exist, please?

July 4-5, 1776

 

[justoffal]

Johnson is floating the idea of eliminating federal courts that disagree with the Trump Admin. Seems extremely difficult and subject to filibuster. Alternatively: Congress could create a new circuit specifically with jurisdiction to hear government cases, or the Trump Admin could just, you know, obey the law.

Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges

Republican lawmakers are setting their sights on the judiciary following court rulings that have halted Trump's agenda.

www.nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — Facing pressure from his right flank to take on judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Tuesday floated the possibility of Congress eliminating some federal courts.

It’s the latest attack from Republicans on the federal judiciary, as courts have blocked a series of actions taken by the Trump administration. In addition to funding threats, Trump and his conservative allies have called for the impeachment of certain federal judges who have ruled against him, most notably U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to halt Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.


“We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things,” Johnson told reporters on Tuesday. “But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”

Johnson, a former constitutional attorney, later clarified that he was making a point about Congress’ “broad authority” over the “creation, maintenance and the governance” of the courts. Article III of the Constitution established the Supreme Court but gave Congress the power to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts.

Congress has eliminated courts in the past. In 1913, for example, Congress abolished the Commerce Court and its judges were redistributed to the federal appeals court, according to Congress.gov. And in 1982, Congress passed legislation abolishing the Article III Court of Claims and U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and established the Article I Court of Federal Claims and the Article III U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who plans to hold a hearing focused on Boasberg and district judges next week, said he’s speaking with GOP appropriators about what he called “legislative remedies.”

The executive branch needs not pay attention to anything that usurps executive power. It doesn't matter what judge makes the ruling. Trump can simply ignore it. In fact that's what he might do.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

July 4-5, 1776

They did not attack the judges. They attacked the King and his counselors and Parliament.

Read a good history of the causes of the war.

Read out loud the DoI.

 

[Rambunctious]

Judicial lawfare... it must stop... even Justice Elena Kagan has spoken against this... these district courts must be forced to stay in their lane....

 

[Moonglow]

Or, we could go back to the kind of democracy where, you know, the people's will were respected and tell these judges they aren't the all-powerful autocrats they think they are.

Or Trump could try to stay within the scope of the Constitution.

 

[Moonglow]

The executive branch needs not pay attention to anything that usurps executive power. It doesn't matter what judge makes the ruling. Trump can simply ignore it. In fact that's what he might do.

Trump is ignoring Constitutional law...That in itself is a crime.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Federal courts are just another line on a long list of things leftism has destroyed.

 

[martybegan]

No, I mean obey the law as in obey the law. He is being fundamentally lazy, thinking signing an EO means something. To change a law, you have to change the law.

EO's don't change any laws, they are directives from the executive to his branch to apply PASSED LAWS as interpreted by the executive.

Each EO is based on a passed law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

All the judiciary is doing is helping Donald accomplish what he wants with in the guard rails of the law.

 

[Street Juice]

Or Trump could try to stay within the scope of the Constitution.

You mean the part where the executive executes the laws passed by the legislature and the judiciary determines whether specific legislation is constitutional and not specific actions by the executive? If the executive is fucking up, then we have a way to reign him in. It's called an election.

 

[Moonglow]

You mean the part where the executive executes the laws passed by the legislature and the judiciary determines whether specific legislation is constitutional and not specific actions by the executive? If the executive is fucking up, then we have a way to reign him in. It's called an election.

That system is too slow and was rejected by the Constitution.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You mean the part where the executive executes the laws passed by the legislature and the judiciary determines whether specific legislation is constitutional and not specific actions by the executive? If the executive is fucking up, then we have a way to reign him in. It's called an election.

... and by the judiciary.

 

[Street Juice]

... and by the judiciary.

No, the Supreme Power rests with the People. The People cannot "act unconstitutionally." California's Prop 109 or whichever one denied welfare benefits to illegal aliens was passed by a majority of the people--overwhelmingly, as I recall. A judge stepped in and said, no, the constitution nullifies the will of the majority. That judge should have been removed from office and his ruling ignored.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, the Supreme Power rests with the People. The People cannot "act unconstitutionally." California's Prop 109 or whichever one denied welfare benefits to illegal aliens was passed by a majority of the people--overwhelmingly, as I recall. A judge stepped in and said, no, the constitution nullifies the will of the majority. That judge should have been removed from office and his ruling ignored.

Soe of the MAGA are now full flown democrats yelling for the will of the people to overpower the Constitution.

Understand we are all subject to the law, period. Period.

It would take the Congress and the states to change the Constitution by lawful procedure.

51.% majority is not how it is done. Our representatives, whom we elect change the law. Not Street Juice or anyone else.

 

[Street Juice]

It would take the Congress and the states to change the Constitution by lawful procedure.

51.% majority is not how it is done. Our representatives, whom we elect change the law. Not Street Juice or anyone else.

You write as if the Constitution is some clear, smooth-sided box in which the law is determined once and for all and the judiciary is a dispassionate arbiter keeping careful watch lest some brigand somewhere try to sneak a toe outside the box, at which the entirety of Justice swoops in a tucks him neatly back into the box. You and I both know, as does anyone reading this, that the case is far, far different.

Judges and lawyers have discovered a right in the Constitution's guarantee of equality before the law a guarantee of equality of outcome.

The Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial for any amount in dispute above $20 has been nullified by "summary judgment."

The Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is flouted daily by asset forfeiture laws--giving the men with guns a financial incentive to discover crimes--real or imagined.

And the list goes on.

Judges have far exceeded their authority in this country. The poor are routinely victimized in our courts by unjust rulings. Dirty lawyers dispossess the unsophisticated with impunity. The Constitution is blatantly--blatantly--ignored depending on whose ox is being gored.