Judge John McConnell Jr Faces Impeachment for Obstructing Trump

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Feb 13, 2025 at 10:03 AM EST


The judge who said that President Donald Trump's administration had ignored his court order to restart the flow of federal funds, has had articles of impeachment drafted against him. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. told the White House that it must abide by the preliminary injunction to halt its funding freeze.

Representative Andrew Clyne, a Republican, has announced on X (formerly Twitter) that he is drafting articles of impeachment, accusing the judge of being a "partisan activist."

The Public Information Officer for the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island told Newsweek that Judge McConnell "does not speak to the press during the pendency of a case."

Why It Matters

Clyne said McConnell should be impeached because he is a "partisan activist." Federal judges, who are appointed for life, can only be impeached if they are accused of "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." If McConnell is successfully impeached and then convicted by the Senate, it will set a precedent that blocking the president's actions in court is akin to treason.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/judge-john-mcconnell-jr-faces-impeachment-obstructing-trump-2030510

---

This is all kabuki theater as he would never be convicted. But if this actually goes through to some kind of hearing, all it does is waste time from actual governing.

[Initech]

1. He is going absolutely fucking mad with power.

He needs to be stopped now, but who's going to stop him? Fuck Trump, everything he stands for, and everyone who voted for the fucking asshole!

[DENVERPOPS]

23. Just like

a "MAD *MAGA* HATTER"

[Marcuse]

27. Indeed. What 's to stop him from ordering comfort women if volunteers no longer satisfy.

[Ninga]

2. The time has past. He will be impeached. Eithet

People get it or they don’t.

[Wicked Blue]

19. Impeachment won't stop him

He was impeached twice during his previous term, but that didn't slow him down at all.

[groundloop]

29. That, his conviction, and other pending convictions have only emboldened him

This sick motherfucker is totally out of control now. Many people were mean to him so now he's going to burn down their country to show them who's boss.

[Walleye]

3. At this point, the Republicans are just vying for the title of most stupid

[CaptainTruth]

26. There's stiff competition.

[Lovie777]

4. Impeach shithole musk...........................

[Gore1FL]

5. This will die in the Senate if it doesn't die in the house.

GOP performance art is getting as predictable as it is getting old.

[Alice B.]

8. GOP Performance Art. That is all.

(except this should be used at every opportunity; especially given the contempt they seem to have for the arts)

[MLWR]

9. Yep. There's no way

on God's green earth that they will find 67 votes to convict and remove.

[Wiz Imp]

16. It will die in the house

As insane as Republicans are, I'm sure there are more than a handful that would refuse to vote for impeachment (remember, they couldn't even get the votes to impeach Biden). All they would need is 2 Republicans to vote against impeachment and it's dead. I bet This never even makes it to a committee vote.

[William Seger]

6. "Partisan activist" means it will be illegal to be a Democrat unless you keep your mouth shut

[hadEnuf]

7. The judge enforces the law. It's Trump and this Clyne who are being the partisan activists and are also breaking the law

This complete asshole Clyne is the one that should be removed from his office. Can charges be brought against him for trying to interfere with enforcement of the law? If so, then they need to be filed as soon as possible.

FIGHT BACK

[FakeNoose]

10. I'm pretty sure Chump has never read the Constitution, not even the comic-book version

I totally agree with you that Clyne needs to be censured by Congress, but it's pretty difficult to remove an elected representative from office. The most effective way is to beat him in the next election in 2026.

That seems like a long way away, but expulsion would take at least that long, and it would only happen if a LOT of Repukes wanted him out. Remember George Santos? Even after all the shit he did, he didn't get expelled, and he was a huge embarrassment. It just doesn't happen when things are so politically divided.

[hadEnuf]

11. I'm thinking that any sort of fighting back would be better than just letting it happen.

[Wiz Imp]

17. Umm, George Santos DID get expelled

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/01/1215899764/george-santos-expulsion-house

New York Republican George Santos expelled from Congress

[JoseBalow]

13. It's an intimidation tactic

Purely performative.

[William Seger]

14. Yes, but it may work -- it's working against the news media

[RobinA]

28. If It Works

we're just done. He's totally above the law. It cannot work!

[Fla Dem]

15. There is no point at which these radical Trump/Musk politicians are willing to go to destroy our Democracy.

[2naSalit]

18. But of course!

[jgmiller]

20. It's all performance for the media and the outrage engine

Even if they pass the articles you're not going to get 2/3 in the senate to vote guilty. The house GOP can't govern and do any real work so they do this stuff. In that regard nothng has changed since Trump came back.

[JohnnyRingo]

21. A warning shot across the Judicial bow.

"Cross Trump and be gone". Unions will be next.

[twodogsbarking]

22. Better stop him now or there will be no stopping him later.

[aggiesal]

24. Big Deal, he'll never be impeached. And the administration still has to start distributing the money. All theatrics. n/t

[Bluetus]

25. WONDERFUL !!!

Dems need to stop politely sitting in committee meetings talking about how eager they are to "reach across the aisle" to compromise with these anarchists. AN impeachment hearing would be exactly what we need to help make the case to the public.

BRING IT ON !!!!!!

[C_U_L8R]

30. Judges ought to take contempt more seriously.

The magat asshats won't relent until they're behind bars

[maspaha]

31. Republicans don't govern anyway

[LetMyPeopleVote]

32. Brennan Center-Impeachment and Removal of Judges: An Explainer

MAGA idiots want to impeach federal judges who are ruling against trump and Musk. Here is a good explanation of the law on the impeachment of federal judges from the Brennan Center. There have been few judiciaql impeachments and there have been no removals due to the rulings of a federal judge.

Judicial impeachment shouldn’t be used to punish judges for their rulings. Here’s why.

Link to tweet

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer

The U.S. Constitution provides little guidance as to what offenses constitute grounds for the impeachment of federal judges: as with other government officials, judges may be removed following impeachment and conviction for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”; otherwise, under Article III, Section 1, judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

However, the impeachment power has historically been limited to cases of serious ethical or criminal misconduct. For example, in 2009, the House impeached U.S. District Court Judge Samuel B. Kent on charges of sexual assault, obstructing an official proceeding, and making false statements. Kent resigned before the Senate tried the charges. The next year, the House impeached U.S. District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. on allegations of bribery and making false statements. The Senate convicted Porteous. Of the 15 federal judicial impeachments in history, the most common charges were making false statements, favoritism toward litigants or special appointees, intoxication on the bench, and abuse of the contempt power......

Can judges be impeached for their rulings?

Historical practice suggests a strong tradition against impeaching judges for their decisions. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote a book examining the history of judicial impeachment, found that early historical uses of the impeachment power established a norm that “judicial acts — their rulings from the bench — would not be a basis for removal from office by impeachment and conviction.”

According to Rehnquist, the attempted removal of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 was, in particular, “enormously important in securing the kind of judicial independence contemplated by” the Constitution. President Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, encouraged the House to impeach Chase, a Federalist, after Chase openly criticized the president and his policies to a Baltimore grand jury. In addition to the charge that his partisan statements undermined the judiciary, the charges against Chase ultimately included inflated allegations of misconduct in several trials. The House impeached Chase in 1804, but the following year, the Senate declined to convict, despite Jefferson’s party holding a supermajority. This failed impeachment helped set the bounds of the proper use of the impeachment power — including that judicial decisions should not be a basis for removing judges from the bench.

This norm contributes to the United States’ carefully balanced three-branch system of government, which requires that judges remain insulated from political pressure when deciding cases. Job security is one important contributor to maintaining judicial independence — so that judges are deciding cases based on their understanding of what the law requires and not worrying that they could be removed from office if powerful political actors disagree with their rulings.