Republicans move to impeach judges who blocked Trump

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Axios

11 hours ago


House Republicans are planning to introduce long-shot articles of impeachment against at least two of the federal judges who have blocked President Trump's efforts to upend the federal government.

Why it matters: The measures are part of a growing public conflict between Republicans and the federal judiciary as Trump bristles at obstacles to his "government efficiency" agenda.

Trump further raised the temperature this week by saying at an Oval Office news briefing with DOGE head Elon Musk: "Maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that's a very serious violation."

Vice President J.D. Vance has also suggested that federal judges have been overstepping their authority and "aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

Driving the news: Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) is working on articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the administration to lift its federal spending freeze, Clyde's office confirmed to Axios.

In a post on X this week, Clyde called McConnell a "partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump's funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending."

Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) has said he plans to introduce articles of impeachment against District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer, who blocked DOGE from accessing Treasury records, on similar grounds.

The Rhode Island and New York Southern District Courts — McConnell's and Engelmayer's venues, respectively — did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Between the lines: Clyde and Crane would need majorities in the House to impeach the two judges and and two-thirds majorities in the Senate to convict them. There are only 53 Senate Republicans.

Read more: https://www.axios.com/2025/02/16/impeachment-judges-republicans-trump

[bucolic_frolic]

1. This is about frightening all federal judges

and it's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Callie1979]

6. They've been threatened before. And they know the Senate wont get 66 votes

[ProudMNDemocrat]

15. There is not 67 votes to convict.

Just as there were not 67 to convict tRump for the 2nd impeachment. In a silent vote, yes!

[Callie1979]

26. Right.And I bet a secret vote WOULD convict. Look how they voted for Leader

They didnt pick Trump's demanded choice. They went with Thune.

[NotHardly]

18. F*ck their threats ...

[riversedge]

2. We have entered a very Dangerous time for our Democracy. Very dangerous

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Because just appealing the decisions

of the lower courts might result in them being sustained without punishing the judges for following the Law and the Constitution.

[otchmoson]

4. Waste, fraud and abuse

What better demonstrates the R's use of time and taxpayer money than impeaching a judge. At least they won't have to be legislating, or solving problems for their constituents.

[liberalgunwilltravel]

5. This will only piss off the judges

This is going to blow up in their faces in the lower courts. The question is: will SCOTUS back them?

[Callie1979]

7. At this point I believe they will.

[GreenWave]

13. SCROTUS loves IQ 45-47 equals -2.

They delayed,IIRC, an emoluments case until he was no longer President and said, "Oops! It is no longer valid."

Seeing the Insurrection just a few blocks away, they blamed and shamed Colorado for following the Constitution.

Then after donating what was left of their brains, they ruled Poo Poo has unlimited powers by sitting on it until it was too late.

[Bengus81]

8. So...this proves 100% that Republicans are in on the coup. No DOUBTS anymore.........

I'm laying it on every last fucking one of them in the House because none are speaking out. FUCK every last one of you.

Think the MSM will spend more than a passing thought at this? Nah...because they're complicit too.

[Lovie777]

9. Not a smart move.................

ya truly want the people to finally learn the damages shithole musk republicans are doing?

[C_U_L8R]

10. A futile effort

That only underscores that Republicans are traitors to our Constitution.
But sure, go ahead and show the world what assholes you are.
Proceed and reap the consequences.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. No longer a country of law and order, but one of intimidation.

[paleotn]

12. Theater again. Tell them to pound sand.

And release Luigi. He's got "work" to do. Oh, Elmo!

[mdbl]

14. Ludacris Magat Morons.

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2025, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Andrew Clyde and Eli Crane are completely irresponsible and not fit to govern.

[Septua]

16. It's mob-boss, monarch mentality

[patphil]

17. This is an empty threat. There's no more chance of convicting a judge than there is in convicting Trump.

67 votes to convict is unreachable at the Federal Level.
All the judges know this. It's not going to affect their behavior one bit.
They may even feel that impeachment is an acknowledgement that they're doing their job properly.

[Orrex]

19. Right. It's simply a way to declare loyalty to Herr Trump

And, like any flaccid dictator, he prizes nothing more than loyalty.

[Justice matters.]

23. Will not reach 67 votes, but...

take good note of the few fettermans? who will help the traitors.

[patphil]

24. There are 53 Republican Senators. They're not going to get 14 more from the Democratic side,

especially to get rid of a judge who is standing up to Trump.
I seriously doubt any Democrats will vote to convict.
It's all grandstanding for the magat base.
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. - Shakespeare's Macbeth

[Justice matters.]

25. I know they're not going to get 14 traitors.

But look who supported tesla-tulsi... to kill US spies all over the world for putin.

[Oopsie Daisy]

20. Just for show. A dog-and-pony distraction and red-meat for their MAGA cult.

No judge will be removed.

[Uncle_Remus]

21. And when that fails they'll start publishing the home addresses of the judges.

The Musk funded militias will take care of the rest.

[louis-t]

22. Sending a message. Even if they fail.

This is about intimidation. They're doing it with the networks, the judges, the prosecutors and anyone who gets in their way. Welcome to Nazi Germany.

[iemanja]

27. The last line of your post is a great relief to me

I was panicking when I saw this headline.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. They definitely don't have enough to convict

And they may even have enough to table the whole thing or send it to Committee (to die).

[iemanja]

30. Though, I am worried it will have a chilling effect on judges. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

33. I think others have noted in other threads

that judges tend to continually be under threat just from their job as an adjudicator. If anything, this kabuki theater from the GOP to try to impeach judges that they don't like (where who REALLY needs to be impeached are Alito and Thomas), is something that could become talking points for Democrats.

[iemanja]

34. Yeah, except for the meantime

My job is in jeopardy.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Wish you luck.

I went through that back in the '90s at my agency when there was a huge reorg and buyouts and RIFs - but in that case, it was done based on legislation - NOT this random and illegal toddler-like slash and burn crap. I have close family and former coworkers who are all still working for the feds and are terrified.

[iemanja]

39. Thank you. nt

[jgmiller]

29. It's equal parts sucking up to Trump, perfomance art and intimadation

The first two are stupid and don't matter and the third won't work. Most judges aren't stupid they know they aren't going to be convicted and they don't like to be intimidated.

The other thing to consider is once this fails on the first two judges are they really going to keep trying this routine? Once you do it once and fail the second or third time will fail even worse. Honestly if they wanted to try this they should wait until they get a judge who everyone hates or maybe actually has made bad decisions then they at least stand a 1% chance of it working.

[Evolve Dammit]

31. And there is your weaponization of government by Repukes. Go for it assholes

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

32. Won't be nothing but a show trial

Wouldn't be surprised if a few Republican Senators refused to convict.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

35. Impeachment and Removal of Judges: An Explainer

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

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.

[Godot51]

37. Coming up next:

republicans move to impeach congresspersons, citizens, and members of the whole world community (eight billion and rising) who block, disrespect, mock, fail to kiss anus of, forget to thank, pray to and worship, and in general not acknowledge the drumpf as the creator of the universe...

[GiqueCee]

38. The Republican Party...

... has metastasized into a domestic terrorist organization. I know, I've said it before, but I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. On the bright side, they're about as good at terrorizing as the are at anything else, which is a gentle way of saying they fucking SUCK at everything they touch. Well, almost everything. They are very accomplished liars.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

40. House Republicans have officially introduced impeachment articles against Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer

Link to tweet

This impeachment resolution is a piece of crap with no high crimes pled

Link to tweet