JUDGEMENT DAY: The GOP’s War on the Courts Has Begun

They started by calling the judges “activists.” Then they moved on to threats. Now, they’re drafting blueprints for judicial demolition.

This week, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson peeled back the mask during a press conference and said the quiet part so loudly it echoed through three branches of government:

“We can eliminate an entire district court... desperate times call for desperate measures.”

The top Republican in the House of Representatives is now openly suggesting that Congress should start abolishing federal courts — not because they’re corrupt or defunct, but because they’ve ruled against President Donald Trump. The context? A wave of court decisions blocking Trump’s most draconian immigration orders, including his effort to deport Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act — a law from 1798.

This isn’t an institutional disagreement. It’s a full-blown assault on the judiciary.

IF YOU CAN’T BEAT THE COURT, DELETE THE COURT

The GOP’s newest obsession is eliminating any judge who dares to suggest the president isn’t an emperor.

Judges like James Boasberg, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., who halted the deportation of over 100 Venezuelans being flown to a prison in El Salvador. His ruling, based on due process concerns and the misuse of an archaic wartime statute, drew the fury of Trumpworld. Boasberg became the focal point of Speaker Johnson’s remarks and is now the subject of an impeachment push from Rep. Brandon Gill, who claims the judge “usurped” the commander-in-chief’s foreign policy powers.

Never mind that Boasberg followed the law. Never mind that there’s an appeals process already underway. In this new Trumpist framework, upholding the Constitution is the crime.

Gill has introduced articles of impeachment, and nineteen House Republicans have signed on. Their argument boils down to this: the judge ruled against Trump, and therefore must be punished.

THE MOB MENTALITY GOES MAINSTREAM

What might have been dismissed as a fringe tantrum gained real legislative traction on Tuesday, when Speaker Johnson invoked Congress’s Article III powers — including the rarely used authority to restructure or abolish lower courts.

“We do have authority over the federal courts,” Johnson said. “We have power over funding, over the courts and all these other things.”

He later walked it back slightly, claiming he was simply highlighting the extent of congressional power. But by then, the message was out: No judge is safe.

The Judiciary Committee, led by Jim Jordan, is expected to hold a hearing next week targeting Boasberg and other federal judges. Jordan, ever the chaos conductor, promised that “everything is on the table” and confirmed he briefed President Trump directly over the weekend.

Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa is pushing legislation that would strip district court judges of the power to issue nationwide injunctions — a judicial tool used repeatedly in both Democratic and Republican administrations to pause the rollout of unconstitutional policies.

“If 700 judges can each do what the Supreme Court does, we don’t need a Supreme Court,” Issa said.

That quote, like so much in this political moment, confuses redundancy with accountability. Judges are not trying to be the Supreme Court — they’re enforcing constitutional boundaries. But in today’s GOP, any check on presidential authority is seen as sabotage.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ENTERS THE CHAT

In a rare and telling move, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement rebuking the calls to impeach Boasberg:

“Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts wrote.

It was a direct slap at Trump, who has demanded Boasberg’s removal, and at the House Republicans enabling his vendetta. But if the rebuke landed, it didn’t slow the momentum. Trump’s allies are pressing forward, believing the mere act of threatening judges can serve as a chilling deterrent for future rulings.

THE SENATE ROADBLOCK — FOR NOW

The Senate won’t play ball — at least not yet. Even Republican leaders like John Thune and Thom Tillis are distancing themselves. Thune called the impeachment push “misguided.” Tillis labeled it “an unmitigated waste of time.”

“I’m not here to make a point,” Tillis said. “We’re here to make a difference.”

Translation: We can’t waste floor time humiliating ourselves.

It’s a pragmatic shield — but not a moral one. These senators aren’t challenging the premise that judges should be punished for doing their jobs. They’re just annoyed by the calendar math.

THE POLITICAL PLAYBOOK OF AUTOCRACY

Let’s be crystal clear about what’s happening:

• Judges are being threatened with impeachment for legal rulings.

• Congress is drafting laws to strip judges of enforcement powers.

• The Speaker of the House is suggesting entire court districts could be eliminated.

• Trump is being briefed in real time on how his enemies are being hunted.

This isn’t constitutional brinksmanship — this is autocratic rehearsal. And it’s happening in broad daylight.

Democrats have called it what it is. Rep. Jamie Raskin said:

“Threatening judges with impeachment or retribution for upholding their oaths of office... is an act of outlaw tyranny, not constitutional government.”

But words only go so far. The GOP’s moves — even if doomed to fail legislatively — are designed to create a chilling effect. To make every federal judge think twice before ruling against Trump, for fear of losing their court, their funding, or their career.

It’s the same old Trump playbook: punish the opposition, then call it democracy.

THE SLOW BLEED OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

There’s no immediate danger of the courts being erased by next Tuesday. These bills won’t pass the Senate. The impeachment votes aren’t there. But the poison has entered the bloodstream.

Judicial independence doesn’t die with one bullet. It dies with a thousand paper cuts — threats, hearings, bills, smear campaigns, and the slow corrosion of public trust.

Mike Johnson didn’t just float an idea. He delivered a warning.

And the judges heard it.

---