Impeachment Fever Grips Congress: From Cabinet Officials to Judges, the Specter Remains
The fervor for impeachment, once primarily focused on figures like former President Joe Biden and members of his cabinet, is far from extinguished in the halls of Congress. The concept, seemingly amplified in the current political climate, continues to resonate with certain House Republicans and even President Donald Trump, extending beyond the executive branch and now targeting members of the judiciary.
The article underscores a shift in focus, revealing that the desire for impeachment has transcended past administrations and specific individuals. What began as a potential wave against Biden officials like Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has seemingly morphed into a broader strategy, with some Republicans now setting their sights on federal judges.
This evolution is exemplified by the recent actions surrounding D.C. Circuit Court Judge James Boasberg. Following Judge Boasberg’s order to temporarily halt the deportation of Venezuelan gang members, President Trump publicly criticized the jurist, even suggesting his impeachment. Freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, followed suit, introducing articles of impeachment against Boasberg, accusing him of overstepping his authority and substituting his judgment for that of the elected president.
Gill’s resolution alleges that Boasberg acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s intentions, and he is one of four federal judges who could potentially face impeachment proceedings in the House. Whether this effort will gain momentum remains to be seen, but the possibility of conservatives pushing for a privileged resolution, forcing an immediate House consideration, looms large.
This trend mirrors past attempts, like Rep. Lauren Boebert’s articles of impeachment against then-President Biden. Boebert’s effort to bypass regular procedures was ultimately thwarted by Republican leadership, who argued that impeachment was too serious a matter to sidestep rigorous committee investigation and preparation. The move to send Boebert’s resolution to the Homeland Security Committee effectively sidelined it, shielding many Republicans from a potentially divisive vote.
The article points out that the impeachment process for federal judges mirrors that of presidents and cabinet secretaries, but the historical record reveals that the House has only impeached four federal judges in the last 36 years. The most recent instances involved Judge Thomas Porteous and Judge Samuel Kent, both in 2009, and their impeachments stemmed from accusations of corruption and misconduct, not judicial rulings.
The key question now lies in how much influence President Trump and figures like Elon Musk will exert on House Speaker Mike Johnson to advance these impeachment efforts. Johnson faces a delicate balancing act, navigating the desires of his conservative members while also considering the broader implications for the House and the Republican agenda. Gill and other conservatives might attempt to circumvent the Speaker, forcing the House to confront the impeachment articles directly. Republican leaders could respond by tabling the resolution or sending it to committee, effectively delaying or derailing the process.
The potential consequences of these actions are significant. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. House GOP leaders are reportedly concerned about the prospect of conservative lawmakers, fueled by the impeachment possibility, consuming valuable time on this issue.
In an apparent attempt to address these concerns, Trump supports a bill proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., known as the "No Rogue Rulings Act." This bill aims to limit the scope of rulings by U.S. district judges, preventing them from having nationwide impact. Issa himself has described impeachment as a "dull tool" best reserved for cases of actual criminality or malfeasance, similar to the cases of Kent and Porteous. The Issa bill could be presented as an alternative to impeachment for conservatives eager to take action against what they perceive as judicial overreach.
However, even if the House were to pass Issa’s legislation, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate, requiring 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster. Similarly, the impeachment of Boasberg or any other judge would place pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune to hold an impeachment trial, potentially disrupting the Senate’s agenda and diverting resources from critical issues like budget reconciliation and tax reform.
The reality is that a Senate impeachment trial is unlikely to result in removal, as it requires a two-thirds majority vote. The article concludes by highlighting the ongoing tension between the executive and judicial branches, with numerous legal challenges and injunctions against President Trump’s administrative actions.
In essence, the article paints a picture of a Congress grappling with the weaponization of impeachment. What started as a potential tool against the Biden administration has expanded to include federal judges, raising concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and the potential disruption of the legislative agenda. While the impeachment of judges based on policy disagreements is unlikely to succeed, the debate surrounding the role of the courts and the power of the executive branch is sure to continue, ensuring that "impeachapalooza" remains a fixture in the 119th Congress. The article highlights how certain factions within the Republican party find political advantage in simply discussing impeachment, gaining traction within their constituencies and online. The actual voting on the act is a different story, highlighting the divide.
