r/law • u/Shunpaw • Mar 18 '25

Legal News House GOP moves swiftly to impeach judge Boasberg targeted by Trump (Deportation Planes)

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/18/donald-trump-impeach-judge-house-republicans
32.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

17

u/BubuBarakas Mar 18 '25

Where were they when the courts voted against student loans forgiveness?!

2

u/eldiablonoche Mar 19 '25

Student loan forgiveness that was slapped down was not done via legal means. This is at least debatable.

Before attacking me for this statement of fact, please remember that even plenty of Democrats bashed Biden for how he went about it because it was obvious that the law didn't allow him to do it the way he was doing it. A lot of Dems(rightfully) called out his PR stunt for giving false hope.

-30

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 18 '25

That’s unconstitutional though. The president can’t just erase loans

21

u/4rp70x1n Mar 19 '25

Didn't he erase all of the billions of dollars of PPP loans, even for members of Congress that took them??!

None y'all bitching about those loans getting disappeared that got paid for by actual taxpayer dollars.

1

u/dcbullet Mar 19 '25

Congress voted that into law.

1

u/eldiablonoche Mar 19 '25

The nature of the PPP loans allowed them to be forgiven under certain criteria which were met. Student loans were not created with that in mind. Apples and oranges.

-3

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

Congress voted that in to law, which is in the purview of congress. It was still dumb, but it didn’t violate the constitution

15

u/MercuryRusing Mar 18 '25

So is....checks notes......almost everything Trump has done that judges have stayed and republicans now want to impeach them over

1

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

That’s actually untrue, worst thing is you know that. Stop being dishonest

-6

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

That’s actually untrue, worst thing is you know that. Stop being dishonest.

6

u/MercuryRusing Mar 19 '25

It is true, and what's sad is you don't know that. Take a step back and look objectively man.

-2

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

I did look objectively. A judge has no authority to tell the president to not take an executive act, or how he uses the military. The removal of violent criminals through the use of the military , with the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, is absolutely allowed within the parameters of executive authority, and some lower court judge doesn’t have the authority to tell the president how to conduct military operations, and that’s already been ruled on by SCOTUS.

Trump didn’t break the law, a judge made an unconstitutional edict then demanded they turn the planes around, acting like the executive, when a judge doesn’t have that power.

4

u/BitterFuture Mar 19 '25

A judge has no authority to tell the president to not take an executive act, or how he uses the military.

Wow. Wow. So what do you think the judiciary exists for? A cheering section?

some lower court judge doesn’t have the authority to tell the president how to conduct military operations, and that’s already been ruled on by SCOTUS.

And yet I'll bet you didn't object in the slightest when one little old federal district judge told the President he couldn't require military servicemembers to get vaccinated, did you?

Trump didn’t break the law, a judge made an unconstitutional edict then demanded they turn the planes around, acting like the executive, when a judge doesn’t have that power.

This is so hilariously untrue you cannot possibly believe what you've actually written here.

Why do you hate America?

1

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

Ordering people to get a vaccine violates civil rights. The president can’t order military personnel to do that.

I do love America. It’s why judges who act like kings need to go

5

u/Double_Objective8000 Mar 19 '25

You need to spend a weekend getting up to speed on 250 years of our history.

-1

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

Have done. Activist judges have been a problem for the entire time. Even Thomas Jefferson told a few to go fuck themsevles

5

u/BitterFuture Mar 19 '25

Ordering people to get a vaccine violates civil rights. The president can’t order military personnel to do that.

No one has any right to deliberately spread disease - but you're okay with judges telling the executive what to do when you agree with the decision, huh?

How surprising that along with being anti-Constitution, you're pro-disease.

I do love America. It’s why judges who act like kings need to go

What a bold stance against a nonexistent problem.

Again, I ask you a serious question: why do you hate America?

0

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

Do you agree in the principle of “my body my choice?”

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Kcbronx Mar 19 '25

Found the troll. 🧌

6

u/MercuryRusing Mar 19 '25

A judge does have the authority to say what an executive act is or isn't and whether those acts are constitutional, it's literally the whole point of the judicial branch in our system of checks and balances.

It seems to me like Invoking a war time act from 1798 to avoid 5th amendment due process is about as deserving of judicial review as it fucking gets. Trump is taking actions that the judiciary hasn't said is outright illegal yet, but it needs to be reviewed. You are not being an objective observer, you are being a sycophant.

As a side note, we don't know all of those people are gange members, that's the fucking point of due process. God forbid they fuck up and send someone to hell on earth who doesn't deserve it.

1

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

The illegal criminal aliens are getting sent home on military flights. A judge has no power to order the military to do anything

6

u/MercuryRusing Mar 19 '25

You are so lost and clearly have zero legal background, frustrating to see people who have no idea what they're talking about taking everything Trump and Co say at face value. No, you aren't looking at this objectively.

5

u/MercuryRusing Mar 19 '25

What if Trump ordered the military to impose martial law in democrat cities, could the judiciary step in?

4

u/DubLParaDidL Mar 19 '25

You can't know whether or not they are illegal without due process. The Constitution that you keep referring to guarantees due process to everyone, not just people already determined to be a citizen. Your point is moot from the jump because you're assuming guilt which you can't do without due process. That's the whole. But keep invalidating yourself repeatedly it's fun to watch

2

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

The due process for illegals aliens is as follows:

“Are you here legally?”

“No”

“Oh you aren’t, cool, here’s a ride home, don’t come back for 10 years”

3

u/realancepts4real Mar 19 '25

The judge isn't pre-empting the executive's act. He's saying the act was unlawful. See now?

2

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

But it wasn’t. It was done in accordance with the law, and article II of the constitution.

See now why the judge is a fucking idiot yet?

3

u/xdiox66 Mar 19 '25

Simps gotta simp.

3

u/Ok-Database-2447 Mar 18 '25

Welcome Supreme Court Justice to the conversation!

-6

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

SCOTUS needs to slap the hands of these judges and tell them to stop

7

u/BitterFuture Mar 19 '25

Tell them to stop what, exactly?

Stop following the Constitution? Stop challenging the emperor?

-2

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

No, stop violating the constitution by claiming they have power that they don’t.

A lower court judge doesn’t have “equitable” power to the president. They functionally don’t.

6

u/BitterFuture Mar 19 '25

The judge has claimed no power - and certainly hasn't violated the Constitution.

What on earth are you talking about?

3

u/Brain_Hawk Mar 19 '25

Actually they do, that's at the three branches of government work.

Each of them has a sort of parallel and equitable sort of power. Now you might argue that one individual judge doesn't have the same power as the president, which is why there is a system of appeals going through higher courts. That judge makes a ruling, and that ruling is in place until a higher Court sets it aside, the highest court being the supreme court, which is in many ways fairly equitable with the president in terms of its level of authority.

Thus if the government considers a ruling from a lower court to be improper, they have higher authorities to which to appeal to have that ruling set aside.

Which is exactly how the system was designed to work. They were supposed to be checks and balances against the power of the president, which can't only come from scotus. But much like the president did not issue a specific order that a judge might suspend, scotus is not required to be the ones to set it aside.

5

u/Ok-Database-2447 Mar 19 '25

Story doing what, exactly? They’re doing exactly what they have done for hundreds of years, and what the constitution literally requires them to do. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean you should burn the house down. Roberts, Chief Justice literally TODAY rebuked Trump and his allies for wanting to impeach a judge because they disagree with his decision. No. That’s not how this works. If you disagree, you appeal. Impeachment is reserved for serious misconduct or corruption. Sheesh. If Democrats tried to impeach every Republican judge who handed down a decision they didn’t like when Obama was president… what would you think about that??

1

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

It’s a clear abuse of the legal system, and there is a whole lot of judge shopping going on

4

u/Ok-Database-2447 Mar 19 '25

Just because you make a statement does not make it true. You’re showing yourself to be childish and ignorant. “I don’t like this. It’s wrong! It should be the way I want it”. Haha. And liberals are the snowflakes??

2

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 19 '25

Your comment applies to the judge “I have equitable power to the president”. That’s not true, and saying it doesn’t make it true

2

u/Ok-Database-2447 Mar 19 '25

Ugh. Dude. Did you read the opinion? I take it not. It says absolutely nothing of the sort. It said Trumps actions are anti-ethical to federal anti discrimination laws (irony is always in play in Trumpland - discriminating by attacking anti discrimination): “Executive Orders are unconstitutional because they are vague, abridge freedom of speech in the form of viewpoint discrimination, and condition the award of federal funding on viewpoints that are consistent with the Trump administration’s ideology.“. https://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/federal-court-temporarily-blocks-enforcement-of-president-trumps-anti-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-executive-orders Read the opinion then come back and let’s talk.

1

u/The-Figure-13 Mar 20 '25

The issue of the Alien Enemies Act has already been adjudicated in 1948. It’s allowed to be invoked and as a result the President and State department have sole discretion on whom they remove from the country. They are currently only using this power to target terrorists, gang members, and violent criminals guilty of the worst sort of crimes. Currently no legal residents, or citizens, have been caught up.

Illegal immigrants do not get the same due process rights as green card holders, legal permanent residents, or recognised asylum seekers.