Voice For Liberty

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Opinion | Trump Won’t Win a War Against the Courts

    (Unlocked gift link included)

    One-sentence summary:
    Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig argues that President Trump’s escalating attacks on the judiciary threaten constitutional democracy and will ultimately be rebuffed by the courts, which remain the final arbiters of the law.

    In this opinion piece, J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge, warns that President Donald Trump’s ongoing assault on the federal judiciary poses a grave constitutional threat and risks plunging the nation into a deeper crisis. Luttig details how Trump, having regained the presidency, has resumed and intensified his long-standing hostility toward the rule of law, the legal profession, and the courts. Trump views the justice system as a partisan instrument used against him, particularly due to his prior prosecutions for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents-charges that stalled upon his re-election.

    Luttig outlines Trump’s pattern of behavior, including attacks on judges, disregard for judicial rulings, and threats to impeach judges who rule against his administration. Most recently, Trump demanded the impeachment of Judge James E. Boasberg for pausing the deportation of over 200 Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act without first holding hearings. The judge sought to ensure due process, prompting Trump to lash out with personal attacks and constitutional overreach.

    Chief Justice John Roberts responded with a rare public statement affirming that impeachment is not a valid response to judicial disagreement, reinforcing the judiciary’s constitutional role. Luttig underscores that Trump’s efforts to undermine judicial independence mirror the tyranny Americans rejected during the Revolutionary War. He stresses that courts-not presidents-determine the law, citing Chief Justice John Marshall’s landmark assertion in Marbury v. Madison.

    The piece concludes that should Trump persist in his efforts to override judicial authority, the Supreme Court and the American people must step in to defend constitutional governance. Luttig suggests that Trump’s war on the judiciary, if continued, could severely damage his presidency and legacy.

    Luttig, J. Michael. “Opinion | Trump Won’t Win a War Against the Courts.” The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2025. www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/opinion/trump-judge-venezuela-deportation.html.

    Unlocked gift link:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/opinion/trump-judge-venezuela-deportation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6E4.zX7_.mKNaMjQ4fCr2&smid=url-share

    Key takeaways:

    • Trump is escalating attacks on the federal judiciary, threatening constitutional stability.
    • He has attempted to punish judges and legal actors who oppose him, including calling for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg.
    • The judiciary, led by Chief Justice Roberts, has pushed back against Trump’s constitutional overreach.
    • Luttig draws parallels between Trump’s behavior and monarchical tyranny rejected by the Founders.
    • The courts retain the final constitutional authority and will resist executive encroachment.
    • Trump’s continued defiance could cripple his presidency and further erode democratic norms.

    Important quotations:

    • “He has provoked a constitutional crisis with his stunning frontal assault on the third branch of government.”
    • “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” – Chief Justice John Roberts
    • “The president wants to assume the role of judge.”
    • “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” – Chief Justice John Marshall
    • “In America the law is king.” – Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    • “A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” – Declaration of Independence

    Word count of summary: 603
    Word count of original article: 1,545

    Model version: GPT-4
    Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

  • Chief Justice Roberts Rejects GOP Calls to Impeach Judges

    One-sentence summary: Chief Justice John Roberts firmly rejected Republican calls to impeach federal judges for rulings against Donald Trump, emphasizing that impeachment should not be a response to judicial decisions.

    The article discusses Chief Justice John Roberts’ response to Republican efforts to impeach judges who have ruled against Donald Trump. It argues that both political parties have increasingly politicized the judiciary, with Democrats previously attempting to pack the Supreme Court and Republicans now pushing for judicial impeachments.

    The controversy intensified after Trump attacked Judge James Boasberg, who had issued a restraining order blocking the deportation of certain Venezuelans identified as gang members. Trump called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and demanded his impeachment. In response, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement asserting that judicial decisions should be challenged through the appellate process, not impeachment.

    The article highlights that historically, judicial impeachment has been rare and reserved for corruption, not for unpopular rulings. It also warns that if impeachment became a routine response to unfavorable judicial decisions, the judiciary would lose its independence. The piece further argues that Trump’s attacks on judges undermine the constitutional separation of powers and that his administration should focus on legal strategies rather than political retaliation.

    The Editorial Board. “Chief Justice Roberts Rejects GOP Calls to Impeach Judges.” The Wall Street Journal, 19 Mar. 2025, www.wsj.com/opinion/john-roberts-donald-trump-impeachment-judges-james-boasberg-a1197f00.

    Key takeaways:

    • Chief Justice John Roberts rejected GOP calls to impeach judges for ruling against Trump.
    • Trump attacked Judge James Boasberg for a decision blocking deportations.
    • Roberts emphasized that impeachment is not a remedy for judicial disagreements.
    • Judicial impeachment is historically rare and meant for corruption cases.
    • The article warns against further politicization of the judiciary.

    Important quotations:

    • “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” – Chief Justice John Roberts
    • “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge… should be IMPEACHED!!!” – Donald Trump on Judge James Boasberg
    • “If impeachment is the remedy for every adverse judicial ruling, we wouldn’t have a judiciary left.”

    Word count of summary: 229
    Word count of original: Approx. 850

    Model version: GPT-4-turbo
    Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

  • What John Roberts’s Rebuke of Trump Left Out

    One-Sentence Summary: Chief Justice John Roberts’s response to Donald Trump’s attack on a federal judge focuses on the personal rather than the systemic threats to judicial authority, overlooking the more concerning issue of Trump’s potential defiance of court orders.

    David A. Graham’s article examines Chief Justice John Roberts’s response to Donald Trump’s attack on federal judge James Boasberg and argues that Roberts’s statement fails to address the larger issue of Trump’s disregard for the judiciary. The dispute arose when Judge Boasberg demanded an explanation for the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador, allegedly in violation of a court order. The Justice Department sought to dismiss the hearing and questioned Boasberg’s authority, while Trump escalated the attack by calling for the judge’s impeachment.

    Roberts issued a rare public statement defending judicial independence, arguing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a legal disagreement. While his rebuke was direct by his standards, Graham contends that it sidesteps the central issue: whether Trump is actively defying court rulings. Trump’s rhetoric, echoing recent criticisms by Elon Musk of the judiciary, represents a broader assault on the rule of law, yet Roberts’s response focuses on the personal attack rather than the systemic challenge.

    This pattern of response is consistent with Roberts’s past behavior. In 2018, he criticized Trump’s claim that some judges were biased based on their presidential appointments, defending the judiciary’s impartiality. Similarly, in 2010, he expressed disapproval when President Barack Obama publicly criticized a Supreme Court ruling during his State of the Union address. However, Roberts has also ruled in ways that benefit Trump, most notably in a decision granting broad immunity to presidential actions, leading some to speculate about his motivations.

    Graham suggests that Roberts may be avoiding a direct challenge to Trump because such cases could eventually come before the Supreme Court. Alternatively, he may believe that Trump’s legal arguments will ultimately prevail. Either way, Trump’s attacks on the judiciary force institutions into a difficult position: either push back and risk politicization or stay silent and allow Trump to shape the narrative. Roberts’s statement, while a defense of judicial independence, ultimately fails to confront the larger threat Trump poses to the rule of law.

    Graham, David A. “What John Roberts’s Rebuke of Trump Left Out.” The Atlantic, 18 Mar. 2025, www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/03/trump-justice-roberts-impeachment-judge/682087.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Trump attacked Judge James Boasberg after the judge questioned the administration’s actions regarding Venezuelan deportations.
    • Chief Justice John Roberts defended judicial independence but did not address whether Trump is defying court orders.
    • Roberts has a history of responding to personal attacks on judges but avoiding broader systemic issues.
    • Trump’s past and current rhetoric challenges judicial authority, yet Roberts may be reluctant to engage due to possible Supreme Court involvement.
    • Trump’s approach forces institutions into a dilemma: either push back and risk political consequences or remain silent and let him dominate the narrative.

    Most Important Quotations:

    • “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” – John Roberts
    • “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President.” – Donald Trump
    • “Trump is effective at destroying norms because he forces institutions and individuals to either succumb to his partisan logic or else avoid the fight and thus cede the debate to him.” – David A. Graham

    Word Count of Summary: 443
    Word Count of Original Article: 995

    Model Version: GPT-4-turbo
    Custom GPT: Summarizer 2

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Judicial selection in Kansas

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Judicial selection in Kansas

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Attorney Richard Peckham joins Karl Peterjohn and Bob Weeks to discuss judicial selection and other judicial issues in Kansas. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 176, broadcast December 16, 2017.

    Shownotes

  • Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?

    Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?

    The merit system of judicial selection in Kansas has sprung a leak, finds the United States Supreme Court.

    One of the purported benefits of the merit system of judicial selection in Kansas is that it produces quality jurists who rule on the law, not on their personal beliefs or ideologies.

    But a recent case shows otherwise. Following, a selection of dialog between Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt and United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:1

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?
    MR. SCHMIDT: Perhaps I ought not answer that, Justice Scalia, but —
    JUSTICE SCALIA: How can you explain it if — if indeed our prior cases are so clear on the point?
    MR. SCHMIDT: Justice Scalia, I, of course, don’t —
    JUSTICE SCALIA: They don’t like the death penalty.

    Here, in one exchange, Scalia exposes the legal incompetence of the Kansas Supreme Court because they rule based on their policy preferences, not the law. “Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?” That’s a question a law school professor asks a lazy student. It shouldn’t need to be asked of justices on the highest court in Kansas.

    But the United States Supreme Court found it necessary to ask if Kansas judges were reading their cases. This is precisely what the merit system is supposed to avoid.

    For more on this see this video from Joseph Ashby.

    —
    Notes

    1. Oral arguments in Kansas v. Gleason and Kansas v. Carr, October 7, 2015. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2015/14-452_b18j.pdf. ↩
  • The unprecedented campaign against free speech

    The unprecedented campaign against free speech

    The political left’s campaign to silence opponents and reorder society in accordance with their personal beliefs is in many ways the single greatest threat to America’s experiment in self-governance, writes Mark Holden.

    The unprecedented campaign against free speech

    By Mark Holden. Originally published in The Hill.

    The liberal Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once warned of the biggest danger facing free speech: “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition.”

    Yet many lawmakers today are mistaking his wise warning as an invitation to restrict the First Amendment. At nearly every level of government, freedom of speech is under unprecedented attack. Many on the political left now seek to silence their opponents and reorder society in accordance with their personal beliefs. This is in many ways the single greatest threat to America’s experiment in self-governance.

    This coordinated campaign has been underway for years. Its creation can be traced to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, when the court refused to accept the Obama administration’s argument that it could ban books, mailers, advertisements or anything else that contained a political message during an election campaign. This simple ruling ensured that Americans retained the fundamental right to use free speech to praise or criticize a candidate running for office.

    However, that is the very core of free speech itself. If Americans — individually or acting together through nonprofits, businesses or labor unions — cannot voice their views on public policy and elected officials, then the democratic process as we know it is dead. The result is a system that makes those already in power even more powerful; incumbents need not fear having those pesky voters learn about their statements, views and voting records.

    In fact, liberal politicians and activists swiftly made opposition to Citizens United a defining part of their platform from the moment the Supreme Court issued its decision. By 2014, no fewer than 54 U.S. Senators — all Democrats or Democratic allies such as current presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) — supported a constitutional amendment essentially rewriting the First Amendment so that the federal government could regulate and criminalize free speech. Congressional Democrats are once again preparing to make a push to roll back the court’s decision and stifle free speech.

    Not to be outdone, leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has declared that she would only appoint judges who promise to overturn Citizens United and permit the censorship of political speech.

    At the same time, lawmakers and their allies have found other ways to stifle their opponents’ speech. Americans learned in 2013 that the IRS had systematically singled out conservative nonprofits in the build-up to the 2012 election. The agency harassed many applicants and kneecapped others by refusing to grant them tax-exempt status, restricting their members and supporters from exercising their rights to free speech and free association.

    Sadly, this abuse of power still occurs. The federal courts recently learned that multiple nonprofits still haven’t received IRS approval.

    Even more attacks on free speech are happening at the state level. For example, New York and California are both demanding that some nonprofits hand over lists of donors to the state. Although the government invariably promises to not release this legally confidential information, California has “accidentally” posted at least 1,400 supporter lists online.

    This fact, and ongoing harassment by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, led a federal judge to permanently stop her from obtaining the donor list of one organization, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. (Full disclosure: I am a director of the related Americans for Prosperity.) However, the IRS has done something similar, conveniently disclosing confidential taxpayer information for several of the Obama administration’s political opponents.

    And then there are the demands that government investigate organizations that hold unpopular or controversial views. Over a dozen state attorneys general (all of them Democrats), recently announced that they will go after companies such as Exxon Mobil that disagree with their views on climate change. The prosecutors’ goal is to intimidate these groups to change their position or else face criminal prosecution.

    Federal lawmakers are in on the action, too. The Department of Justice has asked the FBI to begin similar investigations of major energy companies. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has even called for organizations that disagree with him to be prosecuted under the federal law banning racketeering — a law originally meant to target mobsters and drug kingpins.

    This coordinated campaign is antithetical to the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. In our system of self-government, when someone finds other people’s ideas and opinions disagreeable or even reprehensible, the solution is more speech, not less. Yet instead of persuading others to see their point of view, many in today’s society would rather use government’s power to bully their opponents into silence instead.

    Thankfully, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have tried to combat this assault on free speech. They have championed a number of reforms to protect the First Amendment and prevent elected officials and the administrative state from stifling Americans’ right to free speech.

    Their leadership should be praised, but much more needs to be done. This fundamental right won’t truly be protected until Americans of all political persuasions heed Justice Holmes’s wise words.

    Holden is senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries, Inc. and a director of Americans for Prosperity. (The chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, David Koch, is also executive vice president and director of Koch Industries.)

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Keen Umbehr

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Keen Umbehr

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Keen Umbehr is an attorney from Alma. Besides setting a precedent protecting free speech in the United States Supreme Court, he’s an advocate for criminal justice reform and a former candidate for governor. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 118, broadcast May 1, 2016.

    Shownotes

  • Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt

    Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt

    Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt
    Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt
    Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt spoke to members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on January 22, 2106. He addressed cases before the Kansas and United States Supreme Courts, including the Wichita marijuana case and the Carr Brothers appeal. This is an audio presentation.

  • In Kansas, politics may now cure its own harm

    I don’t care who does the electing so long as I do the nominating.
    — William “Boss” Tweed, political boss of Tammany Hall

    Critics of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback point to his nomination of a confidant to the Kansas Court of Appeals as evidence of politics trumping the — purportedly — merit-based selection process formerly in place.

    The previous process, however, was nothing if not political. Its defenders — the state’s legal profession — denied that, but they were in charge of the process.

    In fact, the reason that Caleb Stegall, the current nominee, is not already on the bench is politics.

    Stegall’s recommendation from Felita Kahrs, a member of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, highlights both his judicial qualifications and the political challenge he may face as a nominee. Ms. Kahrs previously reviewed Stegall’s application for the Kansas Court of Appeals, and her recommendation says that she found that his “outstanding academic background, his excellent writing ability, and the experience he brings to this position, exceeded and in some cases far surpassed the other applicants.” Even though she believed that he “was one of the top candidates that appeared before the Commission,” she explained, “due to politics, his name was not submitted.”

    That’s from National Review Online’s Bench Memos.

    And if you’re wondering why so many will criticize this appointment and the new process, well, “hell hath no fury like a lawyer scorned.”