Category: Attack the Judiciary

Trump’s Executive Order Removes Check By Courts And Into Another Constitutional Crisis

Former President Donald Trump has signed a troubling executive order granting him unprecedented power over independent regulatory agencies, threatening their autonomy established to shield them from political interference. This directive specifically affects agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation but intentionally excludes the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, illustrating a careful manipulation of power dynamics to serve his administration’s interests.

The executive order mandates that these independent agencies must now submit all new regulations to the White House and form liaison offices, effectively placing them under White House control. The order further stipulates that the president and the attorney general have the sole authority to interpret laws, raising significant constitutional concerns and effectively undermining the judicial branch’s role in the federal government.

Trump’s push for expanded executive power indicates a strategic move to centralize governmental control and replace nonpartisan legal oversight with his administration’s loyalty-driven agenda. Law experts highlight that this order isn’t merely about regulation oversight; it represents a blatant disregard for the independence of these agencies and the principles of democratic governance. Legal experts regard Trump’s insistence on loyalty from government employees as an erosion of foundational democratic norms.

Under this directive, Trump has already dismissed several heads of independent agencies, prompting legal challenges that label these firings as illegal. The president’s aggressive aim to consolidate control is underscored in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which advocates dismantling independent agencies altogether, claiming they do not fit within constitutional parameters.

The order may result in severe ramifications for financial and labor regulatory frameworks in the United States, with fears of regulatory instability as Trump’s administration will introduce significant shifts with each election cycle. Such actions are reflective of a broader agenda towards authoritarianism, showcasing an alarming effort to dismantle the checks and balances that are vital to American democracy.

(h/t: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302481/trump-independent-agencies)

Trump’s Threats to Judges Highlight Dangers of Corporate Elites Undermining Democracy

Former President Donald Trump recently threatened judges obstructing his initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a scheme he promotes with billionaire Elon Musk. During a press conference, Trump suggested that federal judges who rule against DOGE’s actions could be scrutinized, implying an alarming disregard for judicial independence. This threat raises serious concerns about the erosion of American democracy by wealthy elites who are leveraging their power to intimidate the judiciary.

Trump’s comments came after a New York District Court ruled against DOGE’s access to sensitive personal data, citing significant cybersecurity risks. He bafflingly questioned how judges could block efforts aimed at exposing corruption, despite his administration’s track record of flouting legal rulings. The insistence on bypassing judicial decisions could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis, further allowing the Trump administration to act without checks and balances.

Additionally, Musk, directly aligned with Trump, has previously suggested that judges who rule against DOGE should be impeached. His collaboration with Trump is indicative of a larger trend where corporate interests are prioritized over public welfare, as evidenced by DOGE’s push to dismantle essential services and bureaucracies, favoring the financial interests of its wealthy founders.

The ongoing interaction between Trump and Musk exemplifies the corrupt relationship between wealth and governance. Musk attempts to dispel concerns about conflicts of interest while heading an initiative that broadly affects his companies, and public accountability appears to be an afterthought for both. As they rally against judges protecting legal norms, it becomes clearer that Trump and Musk are crafting a narrative that threatens the very foundations of democracy.

In conclusion, Trump’s open threats against judicial authority, combined with Musk’s reckless influence over government processes, showcase an alarming trend of authoritarian behavior from the Republican elite. Their disregard for the rule of law and efforts to consolidate power signal a dangerous shift away from democratic principles in favor of a self-serving agenda.

(h/t: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-threat-judges-musk-doge-1235264314/)

Vance’s Dangerous Claims Undermine Democracy and Judicial Authority in Trump’s Agenda

Vice President JD Vance has made a troubling declaration asserting that judges lack the authority to restrict what he describes as the “legitimate power” of the executive branch, specifically in context to Donald Trump’s agenda. His comments arise amidst multiple court rulings that have recently halted various actions initiated by the Trump administration. These include controversial policies such as the elimination of birthright citizenship and the reassignment of transgender female inmates into male prisons.

Vance’s remarks signal a dangerous trend where the Republican Party seeks to undermine the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach. The vice president, who has a legal background from Yale Law School, has positioned himself alongside Trump and other allies in promoting the idea that the president is above the law, especially when it comes to implementing an authoritarian agenda. His statements hint at a willingness to disregard judicial rulings that threaten their interests.

This latest assertion reflects a broader Republican contempt for democratic norms and the essential function of the judiciary in maintaining a balanced government. By championing the idea that judicial decisions can be ignored, Vance and Trump are essentially advocating for an autocratic style of governance, reminiscent of regimes that sideline judicial authority to pursue their radical agendas.

Notably, Trump’s rhetoric continues to escalate, as he condemned a recent court ruling that restricts access to sensitive government payment systems controlled by his administration. This defiance showcases a deliberate strategy by Trump and his supporters to position themselves as victims of judicial oppression, while simultaneously seeking to dismantle the checks and balances that uphold American democracy.

The implications of Vance’s statements are stark; they suggest an increasing likelihood of the Trump administration challenging court orders that it deems unfavorable. This pattern reflects not only an erosion of judicial authority but also a coordinated effort among Republicans to secure fascist control over American institutions, threatening the democratic foundations that have historically restrained presidential power.

(h/t: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/09/us/politics/vance-trump-federal-courts-executive-order.html)

Trump Attacks Judge Merchan After Immunity Bid Rejection

Donald Trump has launched an outrageous attack on Judge Juan Merchan, who presides over his criminal case. This outburst followed the judge’s rejection of Trump’s claim for presidential immunity regarding a jury verdict that found him guilty on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records. Trump’s furious tirade on his social media platform, Truth Social, included accusations that the judge is ‘deeply conflicted, corrupt, biased, and incompetent’.

In his post, Trump labeled Merchan’s ruling as a ‘completely illegal, psychotic order’ and asserted that it disrespected the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on presidential immunity. His characterizations reflect a disturbing pattern of attempting to undermine judicial authority and evade accountability.

Judge Merchan’s ruling is a critical reminder that no one is above the law, including a former president. Trump’s incessant claims of a ‘rigged hoax’ only serve to highlight his disregard for the legal process and illustrate his authoritarian tendencies.

Further complicating matters, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied Trump’s requests to lift a gag order imposed by Merchan, which prevents him from publicly discussing the case. Trump’s refusal to accept the judicial process and his attempts to portray himself as a victim of a political conspiracy demonstrate a clear attempt to manipulate public perception.

This latest episode in Trump’s ongoing legal battles showcases his inability to accept responsibility and his willingness to attack the very foundations of American democracy. His rhetoric not only threatens the integrity of the judicial system but also fosters a toxic environment that undermines trust in legal institutions.

(h/t: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-convicted-criminal/)

Trump Threatens to Fire Special Counsel Jack Smith If Elected, Demonstrating His Disregard for Justice

In a recent interview, Donald Trump brazenly declared that if he were to reclaim the presidency, he would expeditiously fire special counsel Jack Smith, asserting he would do so “within two seconds”. This statement underscores Trump’s ongoing attempts to evade accountability for his numerous legal predicaments, including serious charges related to the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents.

Trump’s remarks came as he faced mounting scrutiny from Smith’s investigations, which have already led to significant legal challenges. The former president has routinely labeled Smith as “crooked” and has shown a disturbing inclination to attack judicial figures whenever they threaten his political ambitions or legal standing. His intent to dismiss Smith further illustrates his contempt for the rule of law, positioning his personal interests over justice.

During the interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump was questioned about whether he would prioritize self-pardon or firing Smith. His quick response highlights a strategy focused solely on self-preservation rather than addressing the serious allegations against him. Trump’s history of attempting to undermine investigations into his conduct raises concerns about his respect for lawful governance.

As Trump continues to navigate his legal troubles, he remains steadfast in his belief that he can manipulate the legal system to his advantage. Despite the significant implications of his threats, he expressed confidence that Congress would not pursue impeachment should he act against Smith. This reflects an alarming level of entitlement and disregard for accountability.

Trump’s penchant for praising judges who deliver favorable rulings, such as U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, further complicates the integrity of the judicial process. His selective admiration for judicial figures, juxtaposed with his attacks on others, paints a clear picture of a man willing to exploit the system for his gain. As the 2024 election approaches, it remains to be seen how voters will respond to Trump’s overt attempts to escape justice.

(h/t: https://apnews.com/article/trump-fire-special-counsel-jack-smith-b0d3d24286fbe0c461a901a33ec78d62)

Trump’s Vicious Attack on Judge For Releasing Jack Smith’s Evidence

Former President Donald Trump recently labeled the judge overseeing his January 6 case as ‘the most evil person,’ a statement that reflects his ongoing pattern of attacking the judiciary whenever faced with legal challenges. This latest outburst comes amid mounting legal troubles for Trump, as he has been notified by special counsel Jack Smith that he is a target in the investigation related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump’s remarks about the judge are not isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy where he has previously targeted judges based on their ethnicity, religious beliefs, or any rulings that go against him. This behavior exemplifies his disdain for the judicial system and undermines the principle of an impartial judiciary, which is essential to a functioning democracy.

In addition to the ongoing Jan. 6 case, Trump has been embroiled in numerous legal battles, including a recent loss in the Georgia Supreme Court regarding efforts to quash a special grand jury report that recommended criminal charges in the state’s election probe. These legal setbacks appear to be fueling his aggressive rhetoric against judges and the legal establishment.

Trump’s comments have drawn criticism from legal experts who argue that such attacks on the judiciary are dangerous and can contribute to a culture of contempt for the rule of law. This pattern of behavior raises concerns about his respect for judicial independence and the potential ramifications for the justice system if he were to regain power.

As Trump continues to face legal scrutiny, his incendiary remarks only serve to further alienate him from mainstream political and legal discourse. Many analysts believe that these tactics are designed to rally his base but risk further destabilizing the already strained relationship between the executive branch and the judicial system.

(h/t: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-calls-judge-overseeing-jan-6-case-evil-person-rcna176112)

Trump Advocates for Criminalizing Criticism of Judges, Threatening Free Speech

 

Donald Trump has recently made statements suggesting that criticizing judges should be illegal, which raises concerns about free speech and authoritarianism. At a rally in Pennsylvania, he claimed for the fourth time that people who criticize judges ought to face jail time. This stance contradicts his own history of attacking judges and attempting to sway judicial decisions to align with his interests.

Trump’s remarks signify a dangerous precedent in which he implies that dissent against the judiciary should be criminalized. He has previously referred to the notion of fines for such criticisms but has escalated his rhetoric to include potential jail sentences. This shift in language from vague threats to explicit calls for incarceration suggests a troubling evolution of his views on dissent.

Critics have noted that Trump’s attacks on the judiciary have been extensive and personal, often targeting judges who rule against him. His comments about judges influencing their decisions as akin to “playing the ref” not only undermine the independence of the judiciary but also create an environment of intimidation. This is particularly concerning given that attempts to influence judges and justices have been historically condemned in a democratic society.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has launched numerous personal attacks against judges, including those who ruled against his policies, and has even implied that tragic events could occur as a result of unfavorable rulings. Such rhetoric is unprecedented for a sitting president and poses a risk to the integrity of the judicial system.

In summary, Trump’s recent calls to criminalize the criticism of judges reflect a broader pattern of authoritarian behavior and an attempt to stifle dissent. This poses serious implications for democracy and the rule of law, as it not only threatens free speech but also discourages judicial independence.

(h\t: Washington Post)

Trump demands removal of Judge Merchan in meltdown before contempt hearing

 

Donald Trump went on an all-caps tirade demanding the removal of Judge Juan Merchan before a contempt hearing related to his attacks on Truth Social. Facing a criminal trial on 34 felony counts, Trump accused the trial of being a ‘witch hunt’ orchestrated by Democrats and presided over by a conflicted judge. Legal experts noted that Trump’s defiance of a gag order could lead to financial sanctions or even jail time. The former president’s actions were described as showing contempt for the court and the law.

Former President Trump indicated that he is willing to testify in his first criminal trial in Manhattan, which could be a win for the prosecution according to legal experts. Trump’s lawyers have fought against bringing up civil court losses, while prosecutors argue that such information is crucial to assessing Trump’s credibility. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks, with the verdict likely to be issued before the GOP selects its general election nominee.

 

Donald Trump Rages at Judge, Calls for Immediate Recusal

Donald Trump criticizes Judge Merchan for imposing a gag order before his hush-money trial in April, calling for the judge’s immediate recusal and sanction. The case involves allegations that Trump falsified payments to lawyer Michael Cohen, which Trump denies. Trump insists the case is a political witch hunt to interfere with the election. He accuses the DOJ of bias and coordination against him to aid Joe Biden’s reelection. Trump’s attacks on Merchan and his daughter have escalated, claiming a social media post aimed at his imprisonment.

Judge Merchan recently imposed a gag order on Trump, prohibiting public comments about the trial’s participants, except for Merchan and prosecutor criticism. The judge cited Trump’s history of inflammatory remarks as the reason for the order. Trump’s campaign to discredit the case and the judge continues, with accusations of political bias and unjust legal actions.

Trump’s denial of the charges and insistence on the case’s dismissal reflect his ongoing fight against the legal challenges he faces. The upcoming trial is crucial as it marks the first of four criminal cases against Trump. The former president’s rhetoric on the case is central to his campaign narrative as he seeks to regain the presidency.

Despite the gag order, Trump remains vocal on his Truth Social platform, using it as a tool to rally supporters against what he perceives as biased legal proceedings. The escalating conflict between Trump and Judge Merchan underscores the contentious nature of the upcoming trial and its potential implications for Trump’s political future.

Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, initially assigned to oversee his case: Sources – ABC News

Cannon faced scrutiny for her prior role in the investigation.

The summons sent to former President Donald Trump and his legal team late Thursday indicates that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will be assigned to oversee his case, at least initially, according to sources briefed on the matter.

Cannon’s apparent assignment would add yet another unprecedented wrinkle to a case involving the first federal charges against a former president: Trump appointed Cannon to the federal bench in 2020, meaning that, if Trump is ultimately convicted, she would be responsible for determining the sentence – which may include prison time – for the man who elevated her to the role.

A federal grand jury voted to indict Trump on at least seven federal charges late Thursday as part of an investigation into his handling of classified documents, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The indictment comes after more than 100 documents with classified markings were found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in August 2022.

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and claimed again late Thursday that he was innocent.

Cannon is no stranger to the case. The 42-year-old judge appointed a “special master” last year to review those materials seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Legal experts accused Cannon of handing Trump a series of head-scratching victories over the course of those proceedings.

ABC News left a voicemail with Judge Cannon’s chambers Friday morning seeking comment, but did not immediately receive a response.

In one instance, Cannon restricted the FBI from using the seized classified documents as part of their ongoing probe until she completed her review. Cannon’s order was ultimately thrown out in its entirety by an 11th Circuit Court of appeals panel, which found she overstepped in exercising her jurisdiction in the probe.

In addition to Cannon, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart’s name also appeared on the summons sent to Trump on Thursday, the sources said.

Reinhart, who was sworn in as a magistrate judge in 2018, is also familiar with the proceedings against Trump: he signed off on the initial search warrant of Mar-a-Lago last year and later ruled to unseal the search affidavit – decisions that made him the target of antisemitic jabs on the internet.

Judges in most federal cases are assigned at random. But the apparent nods to Cannon and Reinhart on the summons for Trump might actually reflect the fact that both have already played roles in the proceedings, experts said.

“If the case is being overseen by the same district and magistrate judges, that means the court likely considered the indictment to be ‘related’ to the search warrant and intentionally assigned it to those judges,” former senior Justice Department national security official Brandon Van Grack told ABC News.

ABC News was provided a case number that was part of the written summons and according to the federal court filing system PACER, that case number matches a docket under “Judge AMC.” Cannon’s full name is Aileen Mercedes Cannon.

Apart from her own previous involvement in the investigation of Trump, Cannon’s assignment would put her at the center of one of what is likely to be one of the most consequential and scrutinized criminal cases in American history.

Her rulings on everything from procedural motions to Trump’s planned efforts to have the case thrown out before trial will have vast implications for the course of the case leading into an election year where Trump currently holds the status of the Republican party’s front runner.

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

DON’T CELEBRATE TOO SOON. Trump has a man on the inside.

Judge Aileen Cannon, a MAGA mole, has been appointed the judge overseeing his indictment. Cannon can throw out the entire case before it goes to trial, and if it does she would be responsible for determining sentencing.

If you recall, Judge Cannon ran interference for Trump during the entire classified documents investigation, appointing a special master and halted the investigation until she personally reviewed the classified documents, and got body slammed by the 11th Circuit who lashed her for overstepping her bounds.

[https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-appointee-initially-assigned-oversee/story?id=99956910]

1 2 3 … 6