Quote of the Day
An Obama-appointed federal judge just decided the Supreme Court’s rulings are more like suggestions, and Republicans in Congress are done pretending she has the authority to make that call.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued an order on Friday blocking the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Somali nationals. It was a brazen display of judicial activism, and it took Republicans about a weekend to respond.
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) announced he will file articles of impeachment against Burroughs on Monday, accusing her of trampling both the Constitution and a Supreme Court ruling that should have ended this fight already.
Matt Margolis
August 2, 2026
Obama-Appointed Judge Defies SCOTUS, Now Faces Impeachment – PJ Media
It’s not going to result in a criminal conviction, but it would be effective. If nothing else, with enough usage, and replacement with constitution affirming replacement judges, when the case was reheard the odds of getting a judge respecting SCOTUS decisions would be much higher.
I can see this process having application in other areas.
Even a successful impeachment won’t help much. What we need is for SCOTUS to start issuing contempt of (supreme) court bench warrants.
Send Marshals right into chambers, or even the court room if necessary.
It takes extraordinary effort to impeach a federal judge.
It takes very little effort to eliminate the position for 24 hours, and then recreate it. There is even precedent for that action.
Of course, even that is too much to expect from our so-called representatives, who have done nothing for us for, oh let’s see… 30 years.
“It takes very little effort to eliminate the position”
I don’t know that I’d say “very little effort”, but yes.
That’s one of the things I’ve pointed out for years – we do NOT have 3 “co-equal” branches. Congress is the strongest, full stop.
But only if someone can herd all the cats properly. If you can manage to get Congress going on something, Congress WINS. There is no one they can’t remove, either through impeachment or just plain eliminating the position.
But it takes a level of unity almost never seen in all human history to do.
The sad part of this whole thing is that we are so wonderfully impressed that they would be *bother to start* the process, even though I think we all know it won’t actually accomplish anything.
“I can see this process having application in other areas.”
If they would *actually use it and make it work all the way through*, as was intended by the framers, yes.
If they make some noises, burble about the bureaucracy a bit, and the whole thing ends in a giant nothingburger the few times they bother, no.
Tell me you’re not expecting that second outcome. Go on, try.
We both wish it was different, but it isn’t.
While impeachment itself isn’t a criminal conviction, it doesn’t prevent one. And for this case, a felony perjury charge seems like an obvious way to go.
Not to be cynical, but as welcome as this development is, I fervently wish it weren’t linked to Trump in some way.
The unwelcome association in my mind is that Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) is citing the Constitution and a Supreme Court ruling, but lower courts have been defying the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings on 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments for DECADES, and none of those elicited so much as a peep.
But a judge defying the Supreme Court ruling upholding a Trump-signed Executive Order is suddenly important enough to impeach said judge?
The implication is that Rep. Ogles thinks Trump’s EOs are more important to enforce via Congress’ power to impeach than the Constitution. I hope that’s not the case.
It’s a bit more blatant and immediate than any other example I can think of, so it’s not necessarily just TRUMP (though that’s probably the judge’s “reasoning”…), but I wish they had done that on plenty of other judges, as well.
It may be worth it to crack the MAD realpolitick that is keeping both sides of the DC establishment from impeaching each other’s judges.
Impeachment was supposed to be a credible threat to 1) keep existing judges to a standard of “good behaviour” and 2) keep the factions from wasting a judicial nomination on someone that it going to run full speed straight into an impeachment wall. But it is not credible. The factions have a “don’t impeach mine, I won’t impeach yours” détente that is strictly partisan political and has nothing to do with ensuring judges have that “good behaviour”. The system works because it appeals to the laziness of Congresscritters: they don’t have to expend political capital and work hours on overseeing the good function of the judiciary; they don’t have to even have a set of principles as to what “good behaviour” in a judge looks like. That’s how we get Justice Brown and her word-salad dissents that are longer that the original 8-1 opinion, followed by a concurring opinion along the theme of “Justice Brown’s assertions are unmoored from any Constitutional law or sound legal principle” written by any of the other Justices.
Frankly, we need to break that détente. The Augean stables are pretty ripe.
One side impeaches and removes a judge. Doesn’t matter if the reasons are sound; let’s assume they are. The other side will retaliate at first opportunity with a impeachment on purely partisan, do-we-have-enough-votes basis, and they’re explain it as ‘the other side did it first’. Then the next impeachments will also be purely partisan, and the public will get pissed, one team, the other team, and the screw-those-teams people.
Someway, somehow, the parties will have to adopt party planks that explain “This is what good judicial behaviour means, and we intend to implement it”. If it’s just a list of “we just don’t like this guy”, that’s just being a loser, and America loves a winner and hates a loser. Make candidates for the House and Senate have to explain “This is why our principles for judicial behavior are sound, and the other side’s principles, while sounding superficially good, are ripe for abuse, capriciousness and misjustice. We welcome the other side to use our principles.”
So, I see this impeachment as the first shot in a war. But war is necessary as an alternative to an intolerable ‘peace’.
But isn’t the basis for the rampant Trump Derangement Syndrome the idea that he is abusive, and the way he flits from one subject to another and appears to not respect the existing laws, many of which will reach their hundreth year of existence in less than ten years, destroying the expectancy that laws will remain without any drastic change as implied in the principle of Stare Decisis? By ignoring laws he seemingly does not like, he is promoting misjustice and capriciousness in the pursuit of eliminating as much of the deficit each year that he can
“the way he flits from one subject to another and appears to not respect the existing laws…”
MOST of the stuff he does has direct and explicit precedent from other Presidents, but somehow, it’s bad when he does it.
That’s what makes the whole thing silly.
Now, sure, maybe that stuff *should* be reined in… but if so, ***THAT WAS ALREADY TRUE BEFORE TRUMP***.
And if they actually DO rein that stuff in, *generally* and not just in the “special case for Trump* kind of way, then I’ll call that a win! And if they don’t, then Trump gets to use it, just like other Presidents, and I’ll (mostly) call that a win, too.
As I’ve said so many times with Trump, I just want ONE standard of judgement.
Unless one side can wrangle up a 2/3rds vote in the Senate Articles Of Impeachment are nothing but political kabuki theatre. Posturing. Because it’s NOT GOING TO SUCCEED. And the GOP is NOT going to get enough votes to remove ANY Demonrat judge from ANY bench ANYWHERE.