We didn’t vote for the judges, and they’re exercising powers that are not theirs under the Constitution. And judicial tyranny should be frowned upon and rejected and opposed. I was on C-SPAN earlier this week, and I was talking about judges, among other things. And President Trump was criticized by Chief Justice Roberts for talking about impeaching judges. And Chief Justice Roberts said, well, that’s not appropriate because, you know, you have the appellate review, you shouldn’t really be talking about impeaching judges. That isn’t exactly what he said, but that was more or less what he said. And of course, since then, you’ve had judge after judge, as I say, engage in judicial coups against the presidency, taking powers away from the president to control foreign policy, protect our country, protect our sovereignty, protect the public safety.

We don’t elect judges to do that. So the concern is that the judges are out of control rogue at the district court level, and the appellate process isn’t working quickly enough in order to protect the public interest. Now, I can complain about it, but, you know, the appellate court’s going to only move, and the Supreme Court’s only going to move as fast as they want in the end. But let’s not pretend it’s not a crisis for the country as a result of this judicial overreach. And I complained about Chief Justice Roberts’ complaint on C-SPAN because I think his concerns were misplaced.

Have the Trump administration officials been too quick to call for the impeachment of federal judges? We both know that it was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who put out that statement. Here’s the wording of it. For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose, an unusual statement out of the Supreme Court Chief Justice. It was unusual. I think it was unfortunate, and I think it was political. And to a degree, it could be read to- The Chief Justice was being political? Yeah.

To a degree, it can be read to suggest that impeachment’s not constitutional, which I think it’s fairly implied there. It’s wrong. Simply wrong. And the unprecedented interference with the President’s powers under the executive branch, that should be troubling to the Chief. He’s responsible for the judiciary. Imagine if he said a statement, said, you know, we’ve got an unprecedented move by the President to assert his authorities, and we have to be careful just because he’s doing things we’re not used to, to give him the deference under the Constitution. Why didn’t he say that? Do you think Chief Justice John Roberts, did he put out statements like this, and you know the courts better than I do, during the Biden administration when they had disagreements with the courts? No.

I don’t think when the left was calling for the impeachment of his colleagues, he even put out a statement like that. Yeah. And I kind of talk about the issue of judges a little bit more and the basis, the constitutional basis and the concerns the framers had about the judiciary and how they thought impeachment was one of the ways to control, and out of control, judiciary when necessary. What’s your opinion of federal judges? My opinion of federal judges, the judiciary is a branch of the federal government, established by our Constitution.

It’s a separate but equal branch, and it’s incumbent, in my view, kind of to get to the point, I think, of the topic here today, potentially, for judges to apply the law fairly and neutrally without letting their political animus get in the way of it. What is judicial activism? Judicial activism is substituting your own personal views for the fair and neutral application of the law, and it’s a temptation for judges of both the left and the right. It’s like, oh, well, I know what the outcome of this particular case should be, and I’m going to figure out a way how to get there using the judicial process.

And that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. You can have a philosophy as you approach issues, but you’re really supposed to fairly apply the law without regard to party or partisanship. The Washington Post has a story about cases pending in federal courts having to do with Trump executive orders. This is the lead graph. Union civil rights groups and others are squaring off in court with the Trump administration filing roughly 140 lawsuits over the dismantling of cuts and agencies by Doge, firings of federal employees, immigration restrictions. The challenges have blocked many of President Trump’s initiatives for now while the administration has won a few significant early victories.

Does that concern you, the number of lawsuits and the number of executive actions that have been blocked via federal courts? The number of lawsuits doesn’t concern me because I recognize President Trump has engaged in an unprecedented strategy of reform that’s really broad and hard to keep up with. So it’s no surprise that his political opponents or people who think they’re being harmed are suing. What’s concerning is how many judges are kind of, what I would, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve enough unfortunate experience in litigation with the government is how quickly these courts are interfering with the presidential powers, duties, and responsibilities and granting emergency relief to these individuals in ways I don’t think the law applies for.

So there’s this almost panicked judicial decision making that’s more political than constitutional in my view. And that’s what’s concerning. Everyone has a right to sue within the law. But courts are supposed to police requests for relief that aren’t really appropriate under the law. You know, I want to sue on all sorts of things. And the lawyers will say, Tom, well, you can sue, but the question is whether you’d be successful. And the problem is the perception is that if you’re a conservative pursuing this type of claim against a democratic administration, you would not get this reaction from the judiciary that was, is so helpful to the left.

Now, in the end, Trump may win more than he loses, but the process is the punishment. And in my view, you have judges usurping the executive and legislative powers and pausing self-government for months based on a legal pretext to cover a political animus. Which should a federal judge be impeached and removed? When? Well, constitutional envisions, obviously, impeachment for the traditional corruption, bribery crimes. Either, you know, ethics crimes, quite obvious ethics crimes. So when taking money for a judicial decision or obstructing justice, you know, the way some judges actually were accused of doing it, impeached for, and removed.

And the interesting thing about the impeachment power is that the founders were concerned, not the founders, but Americans were concerned about the Constitution and whether it gave the judiciary too much power. And in the federalist papers, they said, don’t worry. If you have a judicial usurpation of the powers of the other departments or the other branches of government, the legislative or the executive, there are a few things. They said the judiciary is weak, really can’t enforce its powers without the support of the other branches. And also, you have this complete security of impeachment.

So impeachment was put in there, not just to check corrupt judges in the criminal sense of the word, but judges who act outside their power. So there you have it. I wasn’t going to let it go on so long, but it was an interesting comment. I agree with a lot of what I had to say, and I thought it was good for you to hear it. And it certainly was great and a good opportunity to educate Americans through C-SPAN about it. But so don’t you believe it when they say, oh, you can’t impeach judges.

Of course you can. Now, politically, you may not want to. And there may be reasons of prudence for not doing so. But it’s a check in place that the founders gave us. And our refusal to use it for 200 plus years, 250 years almost, really, practically speaking, really I don’t think has resulted in a better judiciary or more self-government or more constitutional government, but more challenges to our constitutional government from the unelected branch to third branch. So we need the third branch to function properly under our constitutional system. And when the separation of powers gets broken or harmed, the separation of powers is to protect our liberties.

So your liberties are put at risk when the separation of powers in the constitutional system fail. And I think it’s failing today because we didn’t vote for the judges and they’re exercising powers that are not theirs under the Constitution. And judicial tyranny should be frowned upon and rejected and opposed. And the process for doing so is through the appellate process. Congress can provide checks through restrictions on certain judicial, well, A, they can eliminate certain judicial divisions to put not to find a point on it. And certainly, you have the impeachment check as well.

So Judicial Watch, of course, will continue to be participating in these debates. And I’m sure there’ll be legal opportunities for us to participate in the one thing to have the left engage in law fair, as I mentioned, against President Trump. It’s another thing to have the judicial branch engage in law fair. And that’s what my chief concern is, a judicial coup or judicial law fair against President Trump and the voters and our Constitution. Our Constitution in the end. That’s the big deal. [tr:trw].

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