Trump and the Judiciary

Yesterday I described how cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump has been attacking law firms that have been involved in legal action to which the President objects. This is a clear attempt to undermine one of the foundational principles of the legal profession: that everyone is entitled to legal representation. By punishing law firms that represent his political enemies, Trump is weakening the ability of those opposed to him to seek legal remedies through the courts. But Trump's attack on the judicial system has not stopped there. Trump has also targeted judges themselves. This is not new, of course. Trump routinely criticized Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Trump's criminal trial on 34 felonies. Trump was found guilty on all counts and also found himself held in criminal contempt of court at one point during the proceedings. More recently, Trump has been attacking federal judges who have ruled against his actions as President. Trump appears to be hoping to delegitimize the courts in order to justify ignoring their rulings and, perhaps, trying to intimidate judges into ruling in his favor.

To put things succinctly, Trump has given every indication that he hopes to rule during his second term as a dictator. The normal process for enacting law in the United States is for a bill to be submitted to Congress, approved by both chambers, and then signed by the President. Trump hopes to short-circuit that process by simply signing executive orders that he expects to have the force of law. Much of what Trump has been authorizing via EOs is not legal and, hence, is being stopped by the Courts. Trump has subsequently demagogued the judges who have ruled against him.

Trump has reacted in fury to court actions with which he disagreed. For instance, responding to Judge James Boasberg, who ruled against Trump's attempt to deport individuals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, Trump "truthed" on his Truth Social social media network:

"If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers and other criminals out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!"

In fact, no evidence of crimes committed by the individuals in question has been presented, and there is nothing but Trump's accusations by which to go. Boasberg is not assuming the role of President but rather doing his job as a judge by considering whether or not actions of the President are legal. Trump puts this issue in very stark autocratic terms. Like dictators throughout history, Trump demands the right of unhindered action justified by the claim that otherwise the country will fail. To save the country, Trump insists on dictatorial rights.

In another "truth", Trump called for Boasberg to be impeached. This earned Trump a mild admonition from U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, saying that, "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." But the idea of impeaching uncooperative judges is one that is gaining support among Republicans. Even Shadow President Elon Musk has gotten behind the idea. However, typical for Musk, who has only recently started to learn about the U.S. political system and remains woefully ill-informed, he confused which chamber of Congress is responsible for impeachment and the number of Senators required to remove a judge from office.

Musk recently made the maximum legally allowed campaign contribution to seven Republicans who have supported impeachment of judges considered unfriendly to Trump. One of these was Brandon Gill, a Republican Member of Congress from Texas, who recently introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg. Impeachment on the grounds of simple disagreement has no chance whatsoever. There are probably not even enough votes in the House of Representatives to impeach, and if there were, there is no chance that 67 votes are available in the Senate. As such, many of the Congressional calls for impeachment are probably little more than fundraising efforts. But if a resolution for impeachment were to make it to a vote, Republicans could then blame its failure on Democrats. So that would serve their purposes as well.

Much of what Trump is doing should be viewed as part of a wider public relations effort aimed at delegitimizing the courts. He is cultivating the suggestion that judges who rule against him are Democrats or otherwise illegitimate. This furthers the belief that the judgments against him are not the result of his illegal activities, but rather the bias of the judges involved. It should not be ruled out that some of Trump's most obviously illegal EOs are at least partially issued with the full expectation that a judge will rule them illegal. This simply provides more opportunities for Trump to claim that judges are biased against him. Trump is priming the public to support, or at least accept, his refusal to adhere to court rulings. Yesterday I mentioned Trump's hero Andrew Jackson's alleged statement that then Supreme Court Justice John Marshall had made his ruling and should try to enforce it. Also relevant is a quote attributed to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin asking how many [military] divisions the Pope has. As both Jackson and Stalin suggest, rulings without the ability to enforce have little significance to autocrats. Trump does not appear to have any intention of being bound by judicial opinions and is crafting public opinion to go along with his plans.

As the New York Times recently reported, Trump's attacks on the judiciary have had the predictable effect of provoking threats of violence against judges. Even one of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's sisters was the victim of a pipe bomb hoax. Judges have been subject to bomb threats and "swatting", false calls to the police meant to provoke an armed response by authorities. Republicans routinely go after judges' family members, particularly their children. All-around crazy person Laura Loomer recently tweeted that Judge Boasberg's daughter is a "national security threat." Musk retweeted an earlier Loomer tweet containing personal information about another judge's daughter.

The Republican opposition to the ability of a single district judge to stop the implementation of a President's policy nationwide is fairly new. Republicans long relied on Matthew Kacsmaryk, a district court judge for the Northern District of Texas, to stop Democratic laws that they opposed. Kacsmaryk notably stopped several of President Joe Biden's initiatives, including prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He also overturned the Federal Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, a drug used for medication abortions. Kacsmaryk also ruled against Biden in multiple immigration-related cases. While Biden was president, Republicans routinely “judge-shopped" cases to Kacsmaryk due to the likelihood that he would provide a favorable ruling. If Trump found this sort of action by Kacsmaryk to be objectionable, he has certainly been quiet about it.

I ended yesterday's blog post with a warning that by neutering the legal profession, Trump was eliminating the last peaceful avenue left to oppose him. Trump's attacks on courts should be seen in this same light. In the United States's political system that consists of three separate but equal branches of government, the executive branch is expected to be held in check by the other two branches. Trump has successfully made the legislative branch irrelevant and completely beholden to him. Due to a combination of Trump’s political dominance and Musk's financial threats to support opponents, Republican Members of Congress and the Senate are afraid to challenge Trump in any meaningful way. Republicans recently even managed to maneuver Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and several other Democratic senators into voting in favor of their spending priorities. Because Trump intends to rule through executive orders rather than legislation, he has little use for Congress in any case. Congress has gladly ceded this authority to him. Even if Democrats were to gain control of one or both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections, they would not have the strength to pass laws restricting Trump's powers. Trump would simply veto any such legislation even if it were able to overcome Republican filibusters in the Senate, which it most likely would not.

That leaves the Judicial branch of government left to possibly oppose Trump, explaining his current attacks on that branch. If this branch falls under Trump's dominance as the legislative branch has, there will be no more effective avenues for peaceful resistance. Citizens can peacefully protest, but they will be ignored at best and arrested at worst. Opponents can try work stoppages and strikes, but if they are at all effective, the force of law will be used to disrupt the actions. John F. Kennedy famously said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." The same can be said about political opposition to Trump. If Trump systematically eliminates peaceful methods of opposition, he will make violent methods inevitable. We have already seen attacks on Tesla showrooms, cars, and charging stations. Ironically, these incidents play into Trump's hands by providing justification for stronger autocratic methods and, as such, Trump is probably not too upset by the events. Faced with increased authoritarianism, Americans will be forced to choose between accepting their loss of freedoms or opposing Trump by whatever means are left available to them. That will likely mean increased violent opposition. A working judicial branch that provides an effective means of confronting Trump is a vastly preferable option.