Recently, Chief Justice John Roberts did something unusual. He openly rebuked President Donald Trump by stating that “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.” What Roberts was referring to was the fact that Trump had called for the impeachment of James E. Boasberg, a judge who had recently ruled against his administration. (Trump also referred to Boasberg as a "Radical Left Lunatic”, his typical term for anyone who does not worship him like the god he thinks he is).
On the one hand, Roberts's statement was a pretty big deal coming from a Chief Justice who had just last year voted with the majority in a ruling that essentially said that any president could not be held responsible for any crimes he commits in office as long as they fall under "official acts" of the office. On the other hand, Roberts's statement concerning Trump's comments was hardly out of line given that judicial impeachment is a serious thing for congress to do; the constitution states that it is supposed to be reserved only for judges who have committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In other words, not just making the president angry. (It also requires a two thirds vote to remove by the Senate which will never happen, so, thankfully, Boasberg is safe for now.). Really, when you get down to it, all that Roberts did is the bare minimum of what a Chief Justice should do in the face of a rogue president who believes that he can rule by decree.
The late political commentator Mark Shields used to talk about politics in the Trump era by saying "There is no Republican party anymore, It's just the cult of Trump." And it has been downright stunning just how that cult has turned over power to him. The Republican congress, a supposedly co equal branch of the government, has simply given him the power of the purse that rightfully belongs to congress according to the constitution. Even congressional Republicans who might have a slight problem with the unelected, unconfirmed Elon Musk asserting control over the nation's budget have been cowed into silence, knowing full well that Musk could pump millions of dollars into primary campaigns against them.
With congress suitably in submission, that only leaves our judiciary with the ability to put any kind of hold on Trump's unprecedented grab for presidential power. So far, there have been some encouraging signs: recently, judges have rightfully pointed out that some of Musk's mass layoffs and gutting of government programs are unconstitutional. Like Trump, Musk has childishly fumed that the judges ruling against him should be impeached, and also like Trump, those impeachments he's calling for will never pass in congress. And that Boasberg case that I referred to early is important: it deals with the deportation of alleged undocumented Guatemalan gang members to a jail in El Salvador. Boasberg ruled that this was done without any due process, and that the Trump administration has provided no evidence that the deported men were in fact criminal gang members. Boasberg demanded that the plane that was transporting the men be returned to the country, but Trump's people argued that the plane was already over international waters at the time of the ruling and therefore it was inadmissible. (A novel notion indeed). Sadly, so far the deportees are still languishing in that prison, even though their family members assert their innocence.
The Trump administration asserts that the President had the right to deport these men under the Alien Enemies Act from 1798, a rarely used law that was last used to justify the interment of Japanese citizens during World War II. The problem with that argument is that the concern of the act was about countries that the US was at war with, and no matter how much Trump may call immigrants "invaders", we are not officially at war with Venezuela.
A Supreme Court showdown appears to be coming concerning this and other actions taken as Trump as and his gang of cronies continue to try and expand executive power to the point of making America a monarchy in all but name. So far, Trump has said that he will abide by court rulings, but part of that is because he assumes that the conservative court that has three members appointed by him will rule in his favor. But he could be wrong, and then what could happen? Will Trump accept the ruling, or just flat out ignore it? He is surrounded by people who's complete loyalty to him is stronger than any connection to the court, so he very well may just choose to do whatever he wants without any judicial restraint ordering his people to ignore the law. I shudder to think what will happen if he does so. It would be more than a constitutional crisis, it would be a crisis of the concept of democracy itself. It's hard to believe, but one former TV celebrity and convicted felon could do permanent damage to this country's democracy after it's held together for so long.
