John Roberts is famously reluctant to make sweeping, final decisions that will rock the boat.
It's not that he hasn't allowed a few such decisions to occur--abortion being one case--but as a rule, Roberts is famously cautious about rocking the boat, preferring the most incrementalist approach with decisions tailored to make rulings as narrow as possible. The goal, writ large, appears to be husbanding the fragile credibility of the court by keeping it as far away as humanly possible from controversial political issues--an impossible task given the Court's position in the grand scheme of government--and when forced to make decisions to rule as narrowly as possible.
That is the word on the street, anyway. I am no great legal analyst, but that analysis seems to be consistent with his rulings.
The problem is that in normal times, the cases that come to the court are often highly divisive political issues--the tough cases requiring the tough calls--and in times like these, when lawfare is the rule of the day, the Chief Justice's role requires herding the judicial cats and slapping down District Court Judges who seem to believe that they are more important and powerful than the President of the United States.
Liberal activists have been judge-shopping, finding radical judges willing to impose outrageous nationwide rulings on issues over which any sane person understands they have no jurisdiction. The most outrageous case, of course, is Judge Boasberg's fight with the Justice Department, which has been elevated to the point where he is threatening to put Justice Department officials in jail for contempt.
Lots coming today from Judge Boasberg's opinion after I have a chance to review it in detail.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 16, 2025
One clear issue I see coming;
Yes, there is much SCOTUS case law about litigants being required to comply with Court orders -- even if erroneous -- until they are reversed.
NONE of…
Lots coming today from Judge Boasberg's opinion after I have a chance to review it in detail.
One clear issue I see coming;
Yes, there is much SCOTUS case law about litigants being required to comply with Court orders -- even if erroneous -- until they are reversed.
NONE of that case law deals with a contest between two branches of the federal government where the Exec. has been dragged into Court without jurisdiction, the court does not appropriately establish that it has jurisdiction, and the court then issues an unlawful order directing the Executive branch to act in a particular manner.
SCOTUS is going to need to defuse this bomb that Judge Boasberg has started the timer on.
If we abstract from the details of the case and go to the heart of the matter--the balance of power between the Judicial Branch and the Executive--the failure of Roberts to rein in Boasberg becomes clearer.
No Chief Executive can or will tolerate having District Court Judges have plenary veto power over every decision they make. As a practical matter, this makes the Judiciary the Executive, at least through veto power. Judicial review is a longstanding and important part of our system of government, but it has never been seen as a plenary power. The Courts recognize that they perform a different function than the Executive, and if the Executive exceeds its power, the remedy is rarely preemptive but comes after.
This is especially true the closer you get to the core powers of the Executive, such as national security. Judges don't get to decide these matters--they defer to the Executive.
Boasberg and his #resistance compatriots have armed a political nuclear bomb. The more the courts interfere with the core powers of the Executive, the more reasonable it becomes for the Executive to challenge the power of the courts. The Courts, after all, are as bound by the Constitution as the other two branches of government. What has allowed the courts to exercise ENORMOUS power is the faith that they have fealty to the Constitution and their duty to stay in their lane.
The District Courts have not been staying in their lane. Quite literally, the courts have been violating their own constitutional duties and exceeding their powers.
This is a disaster because, in principle, judicial review is a good check on the natural excesses of anybody or any Body exercising power. But Judges are no less human than presidents, and they, too, can exceed their powers.
Roberts is responsible for protecting the Judicial system and the balance of powers by reining in these rogue judges who are trying to blow up the division of powers.
People have been begging Roberts to do this, not solely because they support Trump (many don't, or at least not always), but because the Judicial Branch's power rests solely on moral authority. Erode that moral authority and you will eventually destroy the foundation of the judiciary's power.
Roberts should quit pussyfooting. Draw a line in the sand.
That would preserve the Judiciary's power for when it is truly necessary, and that certainly isn't the case when the dispute is over a few thousand probationary employees or even the deportation of illegal immigrants. If you are going to die on a hill, pick a more important one.
Roberts, your time for choosing has come.
