House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan Sets His Sights on Rogue Judges Undermining the Constitution

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) plans to grill activist judges on their records and biased rulings from the bench. Too bad he can’t grill Chief Justice John Roberts, who, along with the other liberal judges in his secret society, is trying to add a fourth branch to the government: the agency branch, formerly part of the executive branch. Unlike the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, the agency branch will not be subject to checks and balances. It will be a law unto itself.

Jordan’s statements, made during interviews with Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Brian Kilmeade, highlight his intent to investigate judicial overreach, specifically targeting Boasberg’s recent rulings and past judicial record. The hearing is expected to begin as early as next week and will do the job Roberts refuses to do, which is to uphold the US Constitution, specifically Article II. In an interview with Bill Hemmer, Jordan’s criticism centers on Boasberg’s temporary restraining order.

That is the one in which Boasberg, with an assist from Justice Roberts, strips the right of the president to use the  1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals accused of being part of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Jordan argues that this decision is “ridiculous” and politically driven, asserting that Trump’s actions are constitutionally sound under Article II, Section 1, which vests executive power in the President, and statutorily supported by the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the President to detain or remove enemy aliens during times of war or “predatory incursion.”

Additionally, Boasberg sat on the FISA court that approved illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign based on false and doctored evidence in the Trump-Russia hoax. That included the now-infamous case of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who altered an email to justify spying—and was let off with a slap on the wrist by Boasberg.

Jim Jordan:
Frankly, there’s the broader issue of all these judges’ injunctions, and then decisions like Judge Boasberg—what he’s trying to do and how that case is working. We’re going to have hearings on all of that, because particularly when you look at Judge Boasberg, it starts to look like this is getting totally political from this guy.

VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Particularly when you remember he’s also the judge who was part of the whole Trump-Russia FISA court—granting those warrants that allowed the Comey FBI to spy on President Trump’s campaign. So, we’re going to look at that issue as well. But hopefully, we can get that bill passed next week on the House floor, move it to the Senate, and hopefully get it to the President’s desk.

Bill Hemmer:
What do you think you’re going to find here? It seems to me like it’s pretty black and white. You know—you go, you find the judge that’s going to rule in your favor. And it’s been going on for 20-plus years.

Jim Jordan:
Yeah, that’s why we want to limit it to just add jurisdiction—just the parties of the case—so it doesn’t have nationwide implications. But yeah, this is the way the Left operates. They go to these judges, and they go after President Trump, as the Speaker indicated, disproportionately more there than elsewhere.

But with Judge Boasberg—think about this. I mean, I think the President, with his order on these gang members, sending them back—or sending them to El Salvador—I think constitutionally he’s on solid ground.

Article II, Section I, first sentence: “Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” Statutorily, the Alien Enemies Act—predatory incursion—that’s certainly what this was. Gang members coming here illegally, doing terrible things.

And then finally, you’ve got this judge making this crazy decision: turn the plane around, bring the bad guys back to America. That makes no sense. So when you look at all that—coupled with this judge’s history with the FISA court, with the sentence he gave to Kevin Clinesmith, the lawyer who altered the document in front of the FISA court—it really starts to look like Judge Boasberg is operating purely politically against the President.

And that’s why we want to have hearings on this broad issue, and some of what Judge Boasberg is doing. So we’re going to start those next week, and we think Senator Grassley is going to do the same.

Brian Kilmeade:
Joining us now to discuss this is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Jim Jordan. Mr. Chairman, great to see you. What’s the approach here? Because you got brushback from—not you, but there was a brushback from the Supreme Court—saying don’t talk about impeachment and judges. Does that push you back?

Jim Jordan:
No, no, no. Look, everything’s on the table with us, particularly with Judge Boasberg, because what it looks like he did was so political. I mean, think about how dumb his decision was. He said, “Oh, you got hardened criminals who’ve done all kinds of bad things, members of a group here illegally—turn that plane around and bring those bad guys back to the country.” I mean, it’s a ridiculous decision.

And I think the President was on solid constitutional ground. Certainly, he also followed the statute. The Alien Enemies Act says if there’s a predatory incursion, you can take this kind of action as Commander in Chief. So I think the President’s on solid constitutional ground as the head of the executive branch, statutory ground using that act, and then there’s, of course, just the common sense of it all.

So we will look at Judge Boasberg because when you look at this decision, it looks so political. And then you couple it with his history. This is also the judge who was part of the FISA court that allowed the warrants when they spied on President Trump’s campaign back in 2016. He was also the judge who gave Kevin Clinesmith—the guy who altered a document in front of that FISA court—a little slap on the wrist, even though he lied to the FISA court in order to help get that warrant which spied on President Trump’s campaign.

Jim Jordan (continued):
So I think when you have that history, this judge is in a somewhat unique position compared to all the others that are doing some of these injunctions as well.

Well, there are two remedies. One is legislation. What we passed two weeks ago will help with this situation. We passed a bill out of the Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago—Representative Issa’s bill—which said a federal district judge who issues one of these injunctions, the injunction only applies to the party in the case and to that respective jurisdiction. It shouldn’t have nationwide implications.

So we think that’s a good bill. Senator Hawley is introducing a bill just like that in the Senate. We think we need to get that through the Congress, get that to President Trump, have him sign it. That will help.

And then we’re going to again look at this whole situation. We plan on having hearings as early as next week to look at the power of these judges. And then finally, when it comes to the money, I think we do have to do what’s called a rescissions package, which says the money that’s been appropriated and these agencies use it on stupid things—we should rescind that money so it can go back to the Treasury for deficit reduction, or it can be put to some other better use, like towards our military or something else.

I do think we, the Congress, have to do that rescissions package. We’re going to put that together as we work through this whole bigger, broader reconciliation policy. But I think that’s something that needs to happen as well.

#judicialoverreach #jimjordan #trump2024