This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Removal would have been proper in 'a number of cases in our history'

Facing a long list of federal judges who have ruled against his agenda, including judges with documented personal biases on the disputes, President Donald Trump erupted on social media when one demanded that terrorists being removed from its shores for the security of America be returned.

He called for the judge's impeachment.

And that prompted Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to scold, in a fashion.
Without mentioning the president, Roberts explained, "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

And that's right. Mostly. According to constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

He, in fact, said there are times when impeachment is the appropriate remedy.

"Impeachment is proper — Chief Justice [Roberts] is wrong when he says it's never proper for a decision — after the Dred Scott decision, for example, which declared black people not to be eligible for citizenship, impeachment would have been a proper remedy," Dershowitz said. "There have been a number of cases in our history where impeachment would have been a proper remedy, but not generally. Generally, appellate remedies are available, particularly in cases of this kind."

WND has reported that the judge criticized by Trump is James Boasberg, in Washington.

The president said on social media;

Boasberg interfered in Trump's responsibilities to make sure the U.S. is secure by opposing the president's decisions to deport a number of criminal illegal aliens, including some affiliated with a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aregua, whose members are considered terrorists.

Over the weekend, Boasberg ordered a halt to those deportations. Further, he claimed the authority to order planes carrying those deportees that already had taken off, and were in international airspace, to be returned to the United States.

The Trump administration let the planes continue to their El Salvador destination, explaining that the judge's order didn't have any authority over international territories. Further, the judge's verbal order and subsequent written ordered were different.

WND reported further, investigative journalist Laura Loomer revealed there appears to be a huge conflict of interest for Boasberg, suggesting he should have, under ethics standards, removed himself from the case.
She explained, "Less than 12 hours after I exposed Judge James Boasberg's conflict of interest with his daughter Katharine Boasberg, who works for a 501c3 called 'Partners For Justice' @PFJ_USA that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice, Katharine Boasberg has DELETED her @LinkedIn page and her Instagram account. I have exclusively uncovered a massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST involving Judge James Boasberg, the Chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Boasberg recently made the decision to prevent the deportation of criminal illegal alien gang members on planes out of the country. This is enough for President Trump's legal team to push for a MOTION FOR RECUSAL for Judge Boasberg."

It's not the first time such a situation has arisen for a judge working on a lawfare case against Trump. When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg wildly claimed that business reporting misdemeanors, for which the statute of limitations already had passed, actually were felonies and put Trump on trial, Judge Juan Merchan allowed testimony from a former porn star and a convicted perjurer to be used against Trump to obtain a conviction.

It also was revealed that Merchan's daughter is a Democrat operative who was advising campaigns, and making money off the decisions her father was making against Trump in court.

Boasberg is continuing his agenda this week, demanding the Trump administration answer his questions about why it didn't order the airplanes to turn around mid-flight, exactly what time they took off, and more.

He is insisting his "equitable powers" should attach to a plane even if it has departed the U.S. and is in "international airspace."

Trump has been using the Alien Enemies Act and other federal laws to deport known criminal illegal aliens.

The unprecedented work by trial court judges to block Trump's agendas, including deporting criminal aliens, eliminating fraud, waste and corruption in the executive branch spending, and more, already is being described by analysts as a constitutional crisis for the country.

The Washington Examiner explained, "A grave threat to democracy was revealed during the first weeks of President Donald Trump's second term. But it does not emanate from the White House. Judges, acting in coordination with left-wing activist groups, are abusing the judicial power to thwart the will of the people and undermine temperate and deliberate jurisprudence."

Already some of the questions, especially about nationwide injunctions from local judges, have been submitted to the Supreme Court.

The report explained, "The power of courts to enjoin parties from taking action to prevent harm to a litigant is older than the Constitution, stretching back to English common law. This tradition is preserved in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow a party to secure a preliminary injunction if he establishes that 'he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'"

It continued, "This is a high bar. It typically means a court's power to limit a party's actions is confined to named plaintiffs in the suit. This can make challenges to federal government actions tricky because any national policy, such as a nationwide employer vaccine mandate, could affect almost everyone."

Nationwide injunctions historically have been used rarely, except against President Trump, who has been targeted by dozens and dozens from often leftist judges.

The Supreme Court, in fact, has expressed concern over the multitudes.