But Tom Fitton is with us. Tommy Fitton as I live and breathe at Judicial Watch. Thanks for joining us, Tom. Hey, good to be with you both. Happy St. Patrick’s Day. Absolutely. Listen, you wrote a really important article at the Washington Examiner. We’ve been talking about it all morning, and Julie Gunlock brought this up with Joe DeGeneres. We know these judges are violating their role. They’re overstepping their constitutional boundaries. The idea that a judge can tell the President of the United States to turn a plane around in mid-air and bring back non-citizens who have been deported.

It’s absolute madness. But why are these judges allowed to do it? You made the case in the Examiner about impeaching some of these judges. Lay this out for us, Tom. Well, you know, the establishment would have you believe you can never question judges, that the rulings must be simply adhered to or tolerated by the other branches of government. And simply, that’s not true. That’s not what the framers intended when they set up the judiciary, because as I highlight in the piece, a lot of Americans at the time were very nervous about what we’re seeing today, which are judges exercising powers that are not judicial, but are legislative or executive, basically usurping the other branches.

And the Sounders said, don’t worry, there’s a check in place if and when that happens. It’s called impeachment. It’s the ultimate security. And it was tried once. It was a very political case, but it was against Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. And he was impeached for political decision-making, and he was acquitted by the Senate. And essentially, they haven’t done it since. I but only on your basic corruption issues. But the Founders considered this an important issue under which to impeach judges. Now, just because it hasn’t been done since 1804, it doesn’t mean it can’t be done today.

And certainly doesn’t mean that some of the judges who are, again, usurping power in my view, shouldn’t be subject to an impeachment inquiry. You know, I was thinking in the least, maybe the House can have a hearing or two about the history behind it, and the constitutional validity of impeaching judges who get out of bounds in this regard. That’s what I wanted to ask right in real fast, because Julie wants to jump in here, but the mechanism for this would be a House-initiated impeachment, and then it would just be like the impeachment of the president.

That’s right. And then the Senate would supposedly have a trial. Some say, well, the Senate would never do it. Well, that’s the Senate’s issue. The House, obviously, has got its own independent prerogatives. I agree. So Congressman Brandon Gill announced this weekend that he’s going to be filing articles of impeachment against Boseburg this week. What do you think will happen? Will anything happen with it, or will it die as soon as it’s introduced? Well, you know, to be clear, I’m not saying any one particular judge should be impeached. In the end, though, it’s up to the House.

Someone is impeached if you get a majority of the House agreeing that what the person did engaged in impeachable conduct. So someone like Judge Boseburg, obviously, is now going to be on the list for those who are concerned about this. There have been other judges prior to him in recent months that engaged in similar, it seems to me, usurpations of executive power acting as the president or Congress when they don’t have the authority to do so. Right. And so they should all be talked about. And as I keep on saying, there’s got to be a congressional examination so that the public is educated.

Something. That there is an option here. When judges basically are out of control, we just don’t have to sit back. Well, and it’s so maddening when you see how the media covers this because it’s always in one direction that, you know, the headlines today will be Trump defies federal court order and deport these criminal and also everybody’s, you know, for deporting this girl from Australia for taking a womp bat and then but but but focused on the constitutional aspect of this. Yeah, if Trump defies federal order. Well, what about the federal judge violating the constitutional role of the judiciary and trying to order the executive branch to do things that you could write an accurate headline in both directions.

But the headline is only written that Trump is violating something where, in my opinion, I think that the judge is the one who violated something. Yeah, the founders called it the complete security against judges who are engaged in that type of behavior. Now, just even talking about the impeachment process and taking it seriously, in my view, is it is useful, because it does remind federal judges who are have a terrible temptation. And this can go for judges, you know, who are both Republican. Absolutely. Pointed and Democrats. Like, well, you know, it’s my personal opinion.

I’m going to figure out a way to get this done through my office. And there may be some hesitation to abuse their office as a result of merely talking about using impeachment. Well, y’all should read Tom Fitton’s article, the Washington Examiner constitutional option impeachment of activist judges and share that around. Let’s keep this ball rolling. Meanwhile, Tom, if I could get you to focus on this other story coming out of the Biden administration, having to do with the use of the auto pen. What exactly is the scope? Do we know how often this auto pen was used? And is there a way through Judicial Watch that you can perhaps FOIA some of these documents start comparing these signatures and also FOIA the procedure.

There had to have been some kind of articulated written procedure and check and balance within the White House about who had access to the auto pen and who could sign an official legal government document on behalf of the president. And do we even know the president had any knowledge of the use of the auto pen? Yeah, it’s going to be difficult for FOIA to get that material directly. Some of that material is public in terms of, as our friends at Heritage, you know, they just started looking at the official signed documents.

President Trump can order the release and examination of internal Biden White House documents on the issues that you highlight. Typically, that’s not subject to FOIA. To the degree it would be, we’d have to wait years to get into it. But the president directly can bypass that and just open the books, right? And come in, and how did these pardons occur? Who was running the Biden White House in the last two years? That impacts on his decision making as well because it goes to the validity beyond just the pardons, but of other issues that he’s having to grapple with directly through his EOs.

And obviously, as he battles in these various court matters as well as the left challenges him by the hundreds. Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch. That’s judicialwatch.org to keep Tom’s work, very vital work in this town going transcends administrations and congresses. Thank you, Tom. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.