History is repeating itself as I write this. The exec branch is at war with the judiciary. The headlines are replete with how Trump is trying to undermine the judiciary who is simply trying to constrain his authoritarian maneuvers. The very fact that Trump is doing this, is further evidence that the judiciary is correct, that Trump is trying to usurp the independence of the judiciary to acquire absolute power.
The founders created three co-equal branches of government precisely to prevent one of the branches from dominating the country where, if that would happen, fascism (tyranny) would replace it. This is an old story, folks. Pay close attention to what his happening.
This is an old story, history is replete with examples of democracies falling because it's leader dissolved an independent judiciary.
Why?
Because the one iterm standing in the way of Trump's quest for absolute power is the judiciary. The method he is using to do this is to turn millions of americans against the judiciary.
He is also attacking the press.
TWo things are necessary for democracy (ok 'republic') to thrive:
1. a vigorous independent judiciary
2. a vigorous independent free press.
Trump is at war with both.
I tell this to Republicans and they ignore the message.
Here are some historical examples of leaders undermining independent judiciaries in the quest for more power:
Viktor Orbán of Hungary is often cited as a modern case study in how elected leaders can
undermine judicial independence while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy. Here's what Orbán did, followed by examples from other countries:
Viktor Orbán – Hungary
- Court Packing: Orbán’s government expanded the size of the Constitutional Court and filled the new seats with loyalists from his Fidesz party. Trump has already done this, and when dems suggest to add judges, the right accuses dems of doing what they have already done. All dems want to do is balance out the court.
- Lowered Retirement Age for Judges: In 2012, Orbán passed a law lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, forcing out around 300 judges, including many at the top levels, and replacing them with politically loyal ones. The European Court of Justice ruled this was illegal, but by then the damage was done.
- Judicial Council Weakening: He undermined the National Judicial Council--the body meant to oversee judicial independence--by shifting power to a new politically influenced administrative body.
- Media and Legal Smokescreen: He justified these moves by accusing the judiciary of being "out of touch" or “leftist,” playing into nationalist and populist rhetoric.
- New Courts for “Administrative” Cases: Orbán created new courts under executive control to handle sensitive cases like corruption and election disputes--effectively creating a parallel justice system.
Other Examples of Executives Undermining the Judiciary
Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
- After the failed 2016 coup, Erdoğan purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, accusing them of being part of a "deep state."
- He appointed loyalists and created specialized courts for political crimes, turning the judiciary into a tool for repression.
Poland – Law and Justice Party (PiS)
- Passed laws allowing the government to discipline or remove judges who issued rulings contrary to the ruling party’s interests.
- Took over the body responsible for judicial appointments (the National Council of the Judiciary), violating EU norms and prompting ongoing legal battles with the EU.
Russia – Vladimir Putin
- Courts routinely deliver rulings favorable to the Kremlin.
- High-profile opposition figures like Alexei Navalny were given politically motivated prison sentences.
- Judges who resist Kremlin pressure often face demotion, dismissal, or worse.
Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu
- Netanyahu pushed for judicial reforms in 2023 that would give the Knesset (parliament) more power to override Supreme Court decisions and appoint judges.
- Massive nationwide protests erupted, with critics calling it a “judicial coup.” The reforms have been paused but remain a live threat.
In each of these cases,
the judiciary was portrayed as elitist, corrupt, or obstructive, and then slowly dismantled, bypassed, or filled with loyalists. That’s the formula:
delegitimize, then dominate.
Check out recent headlines, this is happening in the US
When the executive branch begins undermining or declaring war--rhetorically or practically--on the judiciary, it’s not just political theater. It can be a
harbinger of authoritarianism or even fascism, depending on the trajectory and underlying intent.
Here’s what history and political science tell us:
- Independent judiciary is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. When leaders start attacking courts, judges, or the legitimacy of judicial decisions (especially those that check executive power), they’re weakening one of the few guardrails against tyranny.
- Fascist regimes historically attacked courts that impeded their agenda. Hitler bypassed the courts with special decrees. Mussolini packed the judiciary with loyalists. In both cases, legal institutions were first demonized, then neutered.
- In the U.S., we’re seeing increased executive rhetoric against judges--especially those involved in cases against Trump--as “biased,” “corrupt,” or “tools of the deep state.” The idea is to delegitimize the courts before adverse rulings come down.
- This trend is compounded by a political movement pushing for "unitary executive theory"--the idea that the president has sweeping, near-unchecked powers. That’s not just legal theory--it’s groundwork for fascist executive control if left unchecked.
To call this outright fascism might be premature, but here’s the worrying part:
fascism rarely announces itself with clarity. It creeps in through delegitimizing institutions, building personality cults, sowing distrust in elections and the press, and using nationalism as a shield against accountability.
The Executive Branch going to war with the Judiciary isn’t just a spat--it’s
a signpost on the road away from constitutional democracy.
Recent U.S. Examples
1. Trump’s Attacks on the Judiciary:
- Donald Trump has repeatedly called judges “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” or “corrupt.”
- In 2020, he went after Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Roger Stone’s case, suggesting she was politically biased.
- More recently, he’s been attacking Justice Arthur Engoron (New York civil fraud trial) and Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.C. election interference case), calling them “deranged” or “Trump-hating,” essentially casting doubt on the legitimacy of any court that holds him accountable.
2. Trump Allies Proposing Judicial Retaliation:
- GOP lawmakers like Rep. Elise Stefanik have filed ethics complaints or threatened judges with impeachment.
- Trump allies have proposed using the DOJ to go after judges they believe are politically motivated.
- Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for a second Trump term, envisions reshaping the federal bureaucracy so that the executive can remove career civil servants--including those in law enforcement--who don’t toe the line.
3. Disregard for Rule of Law:
- Trump’s stated position on presidential immunity--"I can do whatever I want"--undermines the idea that the president is bound by law.
- He has promised to “go after” political opponents if reelected, which would directly invert the idea of impartial justice.
- His Supreme Court nominees, while legally confirmed, were vetted for ideological loyalty via the Federalist Society pipeline.
What Political Theorists Warned
Hannah Arendt (
The Origins of Totalitarianism,
On Revolution):
- Arendt warned that totalitarianism grows when public trust in institutions crumbles and facts become relative.
- She stressed the danger of turning law into a tool of politics, where legality is determined by loyalty to a leader rather than the Constitution.
- She described the rise of authoritarian regimes as being marked by the destruction of the judiciary’s independence and the collapse of the line between truth and propaganda.
Umberto Eco (
Ur-Fascism, 1995): Eco’s 14 signs of fascism include:
- “The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake” – bypassing legal processes in favor of strongman decrees.
- “Disagreement is Treason” – characterizing judicial restraint or critique as anti-American or enemy behavior.
- “Selective Populism” – direct connection between the Leader and the ‘pure people,’ circumventing institutions.
- “Contempt for the Weak” – seeing compromise, restraint, and judicial independence as signs of weakness.
When a president or his allies
attack judges,
seek to defund or defang oversight, and
promise retribution rather than due process, they are
checking off multiple boxes in the fascism playbook--
even if they wrap it in the American flag.
So--Are We There Yet?
No. But we’re
flirting with the conditions that historically precede authoritarian collapse. Fascism rarely arrives as a goose-stepping monster. It shows up through:
- Normalized lawbreaking
- Escalating attacks on institutions
- A political base conditioned to reject checks and balances
If the judiciary falls or is cowed into silence, there may be no institutional firewall left. Congress, which should have been a firewall, is controlled by complacent and spineless Republicans. When Dems come out and indicate what Trump is doing, what does Trump and Republicans do? They call us "Marxists". This is to gin up hatred against Democrats. The other tactic is merely to kill the conversation with thought-terminating cliches, such as:
1. They are suffering from TDS
2. Paint rogue acts of violence by rogue bad actors as all Dems doing it. But if Repubs do it (Jan 6) they are 'patriots'.
3. Dems are Marxists.
4. US is not a 'democracy' (as if a republic isn't).
Trump is a singular threat to Democracy. I say this and Repubs call us Marxists, then they assert that the US isn't a democracy.
Well, it's one or the other, to the degree we don't have democracy, we have fascism, these polar opposites are inversely proportional.
Heck, even another thread on this forum the poster is trying to argue that the judiciary is trying to 'run the country'. No, Boasberg is merely trying, as the framers intended, to put a check on the exec branch who is clearly on a quest for more and more authoritarian power. This is the original design, if one of the branches overreaches, the other branch is suppose to constrain it. Well, Congress caved, so all that is left is the judiciary. The only thing between Trump acquiring dictatorial power are the courts.
Prey for them. If you aren't,. you are contributing to the fall of america and the great western experiment, because if america falls, China & Russia rise.
This is what is at stake.
Yeah, some on the right will *shout 'boy who cried wolf' since dems have been screaming about Trump for a long time.
Why? Because the people who mattered weren't listening.
Would someone please wake up?
*BTW, do recall that in that famous children's fable (the original version), the wolf did eat the sheep & the boy.
Zone1 For what it’s worth, I want you all to know I appreciate you being here with me.
