Constitution of the United States, Aeticle 2, Section 3:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
____________________________
Donald Trump Truth Social Post – 18 March 2025
“HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
____________________________
In the 237-year history of the United States, seven judges have been impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from the Bench, beginning in 1803 with John Pickering, convicted of intoxication on the Bench and the unlawful handling of property claims.
The most recent conviction is that of G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., who was removed for taking bribes and making false statements in 2010.
The House of Representatives has impeached three other judges who resigned before trial by the Senate.
Another four judges have been impeached, but the Senate acquitted them.
No judge has ever been impeached for carrying out the jurisdictional duties that come with being a judge. At least, not yet.
Trump’s post on Truth Social was so egregious it forced Chief Justice John Roberts to take the highly unusual step of issuing an official statement rebuking the president for his executive overreach.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts wrote. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Trump is not the only one calling for impeaching judges who stifle his efforts. Elon Musk has been far more voluble. On 6 March, Reuters noted that since the end of January, Musk had lashed out at judges in more than 30 posts on X, calling them “corrupt,” “radical,” and “evil” after they dealt DOGE legal blows. Last week, he posted on X, “Without judicial reform, which means at least the absolute worst judges get impeached, we don’t have real democracy in America.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also jumped in to condemn the judiciary, issuing a statement saying, “A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the executive branch. The president has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch — singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the president’s agenda. If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for president themselves,” she said. “The Trump administration will immediately fight back against this absurd and unconstitutional order.”
Actually, it was two judges, U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland and U.S. District Judge William Alsup in California, who last week ordered the reinstatement of about 25,000 probationary employees in 18 Agencies. The courts ordered the reinstatements to be completed by Monday of this week, 17 March. Both judges found that the firings of the probationary employees egregiously violated the law.
Then, an interesting thing happened. Despite the bluster of Trump, Musk, and Leavitt, the government complied with the orders. As CBS reported yesterday, each Agency gave a detailed accounting of the reinstatements.
Each Agency reported individually to the courts that most of the fired workers had been rehired and placed on paid Administrative Leave. The California judge, William Alsup, asked government lawyers if this was just a ploy, because “[t]his is not allowed by the preliminary injunction, for it would not restore the services the preliminary injunction intends to restore.” In other words, putting probationary workers on paid Administrative Leave does nothing to make the Agencies do the work Congress intended when it appropriated the funding meant to allow each Agency to carry out its mission.
In a filing yesterday, the Justice Department responded to Judge Alsup’s question by asserting that placing reinstated employees on paid Administrative Leave “is merely a first part of a series of steps to reinstate probationary employees” and that this will continue “until their badging and IT access are restored, at which time they will be converted to an Active Duty status…”
In the dripping-with-irony response of the Department of Human Services, Head of Human Capital John Gardner advised the court that “reinstatement of removed employees to full duty status would impose substantial burdens on HHS, cause significant confusion, and cause turmoil for the terminated employees.” Furthermore, “an appellate ruling could reverse the district court’s order shortly after terminated employees have been reinstated or have returned to full duty status. In short, employees could be subjected to multiple changes in their employment status in a matter of weeks.”
That was rich. It’s kind of like complaining about having to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after kicking him off a wall — twice.
This is reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev ordered his ships to stop and turn around rather than go past the 500-mile quarantine line President Kennedy had set around Cuba. “We’re eyeball to eyeball,” Secretary of State Dean Rusk whispered to National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, “and I think the other fellow just blinked.”
On Monday, the Trump administration blinked — but for how long?
At this moment, the courts seem to be the only thing holding Trump and Musk back. And Democrats, powerless to do anything about it, seem to be throwing all their chips into the pot, hoping the Judiciary will place a stranglehold on the venal denizens of DOGE.
Court orders are working for the moment, but what happens if the Trump team decides to ignore the rulings? What recourse does the Judiciary have then?
The Constitution gives the Judiciary the power to rule on disputes, but not enforce the rulings. That task falls to the U.S. Marshall Service, which is a bureau within the Department of Justice and operates under the authority and direction of the Attorney General, who reports to President Donald Trump, head of the Executive Branch. Could and would Donald Trump order Attorney General Pam Bondi to direct the Marshall Service to ignore court rulings that would stifle his MAGA remake of America’s government?
If we’re not in a constitutional crisis now, we sure would be then.
