Donald Trump backtracks on judicial attacks. (Photo: Getty)
The Trump administration’s broad attack on the judicial system is posing “serious risks” to the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution.
The American Bar Association, the nation’s leading legal organization, raised those red flags last night over remarks by “high-ranking administration officials.”
“[They] appear to question the legitimacy of judicial review and demand impeachment of a judge merely because the court did not agree with the government’s position,” the group said in a release.
“They pose a clear and present challenge to our democracy and the separation of powers among the three independent branches. We will stand for the rule of law today as we have for nearly 150 years.”
Trump launched his administration with a flurry of executive orders; many appear to violate numerous regulations, laws, and potentially the Constitution.
The orders prompted a wave of lawsuits which have stymied some of the administration’s most controversial actions.
Last week, the administration lost a pretrial motion in a federal district court that blocked Elon Musk’s raid on Department of Treasury to obtain private records of “many, if not all, U.S. citizens.”
Trump’s Record, So Far
Birthright citizenship order – BLOCKED.
Federal funding cut off – BLOCKED.
Illegal feds resignation plan – BLOCKED.
Access to Treasury’s vital data system – BLOCKED.
Firing 2000 USAID workers – BLOCKED.
Drastic NIH Grant Cuts – BLOCKED.
Removing public health websites – BLOCKED.
Musk’s called to impeach judges, which sparked social media sycophants to join in.
Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) said he would draft articles of impeachment against the US District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who was singled out by Musk.
“Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy,” Crane asserted.
Republicans from Vice President J.D. Vance to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have claimed the courts have no right to review presidential actions. Both are Ivy League educated lawyers.
Related: Trump 2nd Term Slammed by Lawsuits as Sketchy, Illegal, Unconstitutional Orders Pile Up
But other Capitol Hill Republicans, along with new Attorney General Pam Bondi, pushed back on Musk and the others.
“We’re going to follow the law right now. We’re going to follow the process. These are federal judges with lifetime appointments,” Bondi told reporters yesterday (Feb. 12).
In the face of the widespread backlash, Trump also pledged yesterday to abide by court rulings.
The ABA noted that the legal rulings are par for the course in disputed matters.
“It is certainly not the first time an administration has not prevailed in a pretrial motion in one of thousands of cases it files or defends each year,” it said.
“There is no final judgment in this case and, in any event, the government can appeal in a manner it has done countless times over the years.
Related: Courts in Crisis: Judicial System Struggles With Politics, Bias, Corruption in Age of Trumpism
“The right to appeal is there for any party dissatisfied with a court’s decision. It is also the right of every American and the government to criticize a decision made by the courts.”
“It is also not acceptable to attack the judge making the ruling or try to interfere with the independence of the court,” it asserted.
The attacks are particularly odious because they undermine the very foundation of our government — the separation of powers between three co-equal branches of government.
“All lawyers know that judges have the authority to determine whether the administration’s actions are lawful and a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority.
Related: Donald Trump Legal War Heats Up: New York AG Asks Court to Toss ‘Baseless’ Lawsuit
“It is one of the oldest and most revered precedent in United States legal history” — Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 Supreme Court ruling that established the principle of judicial review of executive actions.
“This is a key principle that is taught in the first year of law school,” the group noted.
“These bold assertions, designed to intimidate judges by threatening removal if they do not rule the government’s way, cross the line.
“They create a risk to the physical security of judges and have no place in our society.
There have also been suggestions that the executive branch should consider disobeying court orders. These statements threaten the very foundation of our constitutional system.”
“To stay silent is to suggest that these statements are acceptable or the new norm. They are not.
“We will not be silent in the face of such words that are contrary to our constitutional system.”