A.G. Gancarski
Gov. Ron DeSantis has a solution for Judges that make rulings counter to the Donald Trump administration on immigration: Find another job.
DeSantis suggests that Judges like U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who ruled that a recent deportation of alleged Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador was illegal even as the Trump administration said the flight was in the air already, can have their jurisdiction stripped from immigration cases.
“When Thomas Jefferson became President, they’d have problems with Judges. They just eliminated these judgeships that they had problems with,” DeSantis said during a discussion at New College.
“Other than the Supreme Court, none of the other courts even exist as a matter of constitutional right. That’s purely the discretion of Congress to create and then set the jurisdiction.”
These comments followed up on an X post the day before.
“Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place. The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by ‘resistance’ judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills teed up at the onset of this Congress?” DeSantis wrote Wednesday.
DeSantis has suspended State Attorneys for failure to enforce state law as his administration interprets it, so his aggressive solution is in keeping with how DeSantis handles his current role.
Trump believes the Judge should be impeached.
Boasberg is a former Yale athlete like DeSantis, playing varsity basketball. A Skull and Bones member, he was appointed to judgeships by former President George W. Bush (who belonged to that elite secret society) and Barack Obama (who did not).
DeSantis has been critical of judicial rulings throughout Trump’s second term, and for much longer has complained that federal Judges lean too far left.
He said earlier this month that a 5-4 SCOTUS decision siding with a lower court Judge objecting to Trump’s desire to stop USAID foreign aid was a “missed … huge opportunity to put a stop to rogue district courts interfering with executive branch operations.”
During his remarks Thursday, DeSantis reprised familiar complaints about how the court isn’t far right enough for him.
“The three liberal Justices, they’re always going to be against no matter what. And then of the six others, you know, a lot of them aren’t reliable,” he said, citing Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as exceptions.
DeSantis’ critiques have extended to all Trump appointees. The Governor went after Brett Kavanaugh, who, after his confirmation, opted to “go left,” and Neil Gorsuch, who DeSantis said was even worse.
He also included Amy Coney Barrett in the mix, telling Hugh Hewitt that while he respects “the three appointees he did … none of those three are at the same level” as Alito and Thomas.
DeSantis is also lukewarm on the Chief Justice, he said when running for President.
“If you replace a Clarence Thomas with somebody like a John Roberts or somebody like that, then you’re going to actually see the court move to the left, and you can’t do that,” DeSantis said.
As a presidential candidate, he said he expected the next President to be able to replace up to four Justices and create a path to a “7-2” conservative majority.
44 comments
Michael K
March 20, 2025 at 3:34 pm
Yes – arrest, remove and/or imprison anyone you disagree with.
And he was a history major?
TJC
March 20, 2025 at 4:01 pm
His favorite historical figures all had King in front of their names.
Erica Ashley
March 21, 2025 at 5:01 pm
I just received $6618 working off my Iaptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made 0ver $15781 her first m0nth. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less.
This is what I do… work43.marketingℱ
please don’t copy”ℱ” In Url Thanks
Oscar
March 26, 2025 at 5:00 pm
Gauging by your illiterate and childlike posts, I’m guessing you majored in intersectional studies, Nordic lesbianism or popular puppetry.
A.P. Peel
March 20, 2025 at 3:38 pm
DeSantis is, of course, correct. These courts were created in law and they can be uncreated in law. Might be worth thinking about.
The Cat In The MAGA Hat
March 20, 2025 at 3:58 pm
Hope your ass do not go.before a judge
TJC
March 20, 2025 at 4:03 pm
DeSantis is, of course, select. He only wants judges who do his or Trump’s bidding. That’s not justice, that’s Russia.
REYNOLD PALMER
March 21, 2025 at 3:25 pm
Do you mean like Joe Biden’s leftist judges using law fair against Donald Trump?
MH/Duuuval
March 23, 2025 at 11:48 am
Judges only came into the picture after law enforcement and state or DOJ attorneys made the case.
SuzyQ
March 20, 2025 at 4:58 pm
Agreed. America’s Governor is correct that the Constitution grants Congress such explicit authority. Well said.
lobsta
March 20, 2025 at 10:25 pm
Unliekely. This is a rare move . Congress has so much other shit going on. They haven’t been accomplishing much. Republican’s have less than 2 years to push through as much shit possible before the possibility of losing a majority ad then never being able to pas anything else in trumps term. We’ll see tons of EO’s and tons overturned EO’s and that’s about it.
MH/Duuuval
March 22, 2025 at 3:10 pm
The main event for Putin’s Poodle is a yuge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations. The rest of the show is to satisfy and train bullies to is, bully everyone you can, and placate those you can’t.
Paul
March 20, 2025 at 4:00 pm
DeSantis talking out of his ass…again.
TJC
March 20, 2025 at 4:02 pm
And he has to bend so far over to do it! He should join the circus instead of running the state like one.
SuzyQ
March 21, 2025 at 3:46 pm
Congress may define the jurisdiction of the judiciary through the simultaneous use of two powers. First, Congress holds the power to create (and, implicitly, to define the jurisdiction of) federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (i.e. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and various other Article I and Article III tribunals). This court-creating power is granted both in the congressional powers clause (Art. I, § 8, Cl. 9) and in the judicial vesting clause (Art. III, § 1). This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2).
Skeptic
March 22, 2025 at 9:32 am
So, defund the police is not enough for MAGA. Now they are all in on get rid of the courts? I imagine there is no thought to crime rates (although one expects that rising crime is among one of their favorite campaign issues).
Wendy
March 23, 2025 at 1:25 pm
I see you are still making idiotic posts. Only the radical progressive left wants lawlessness and to defund the police. Are you really that stupid or do you habitually post such nonsense for fun?
KathrynA
March 26, 2025 at 3:03 pm
They wouldn’t have come after him if he had not created an insurrection and did other and various sundry things that were unlawful and it continues to this day! Judges are there as a check and balance and we sure need them always.
LCS
March 20, 2025 at 6:46 pm
If this were the opposite situation, where a Democratic president was trying to force through an agenda and judges were ruling against the actions, would he still be calling for judges to be removed? No. This is checks and balances FTW. The whole point of the judicial system.
KathrynA
March 26, 2025 at 3:04 pm
I don’t see and hear radical progressives calling for defunding police and getting rid of judges–obviously, this is coming from the MAGA movement, which wants to do as much unlawful things as possible to destroy our country!
SuzyQ
March 21, 2025 at 3:40 am
Congress may define the jurisdiction of the judiciary through the simultaneous use of two powers. First, Congress holds the power to create (and, implicitly, to define the jurisdiction of) federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (i.e. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and various other Article I and Article III tribunals). This court-creating power is granted both in the congressional powers clause (Art. I, § 8, Cl. 9) and in the judicial vesting clause (Art. III, § 1). Second, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by “knocking [federal courts] … out of the game.”
MH/Duuuval
March 22, 2025 at 3:20 pm
SuzyQ quoting Google AI: “Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by “knocking [federal courts] … out of the game.”
This is the handiwork of the Roberts court, which is not the high water mark of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Trump appears to have alienated two votes, however, which may lead to some surprising 5-4 votes AGAINST the existing MAGA majority on the court.
Will
March 21, 2025 at 11:11 am
Wow! A lot of liberal comments. It might help if some of these commentators looked at the Constitution before making some of those comments. District Judges are overstepping their bounds dictating rules for the president. Yes, any president even those sad Democrat presidents.
Wendy
March 21, 2025 at 3:25 pm
Facts? We don’t need no stupid facts! The radical progressive left exists in a self-contained dome of sheer stupidity….
MH/Duuuval
March 21, 2025 at 11:28 pm
Only an appeals court or the Supreme Court can decide if a district judge has made an error in procedure. Trump, as usual, imagines that HIS case is different and that he can reverse things all by himself. Follow the law, or invite anarchy.
John Kociuba
March 21, 2025 at 11:12 am
Entelechy,
Honorable Florida Governor Ron Desantis is a BRILLIANT political tactician. As a leader, he executes policy precisely. Might one add a suggestion to the question of a resplendent Republican Party in 2026 instead of ebbing, mudslinging, waste of treasure?
Donald’s/Desantis 2026?
One Governor, One VG or DOGE, an unstoppable.
Respectfully,
🔺
retired state employee
March 21, 2025 at 1:15 pm
Maybe DeSantis could concentrate on his job in our state, like highest property insurance rates, highest housing costs, lowest reading and math scores and water quality issues instead of weighing in on issues that he has no jurisdiction over. Too bad our constitution does not allow for his removal! DO YOUR JOB!
SuzyQ
March 21, 2025 at 3:44 pm
It does. Perhaps you need to reread the Florida Constitution or likely read it for the first time in your life.
MH/Duuuval
March 21, 2025 at 11:35 pm
Simply cite the location of this provision, and keep your invective to yourself.
Wendy
March 23, 2025 at 1:29 pm
Retired state employee says it all. Florida has consistently ranked near the top in public education. Housing costs are high because people want to move here from failed, technically bankrupt and crime ridden blue states. And by the way 9 out of the 10 states with the highest rate of homelessness are run by Democrats. You know exactly where you can put your invective….
Clifford Reid
March 21, 2025 at 2:03 pm
The question is academic. It is the Executive branch of the government which is responsible for keeping our borders secure. The By-Don administration blatantly and aggressively violated that responsibility. Now that responsibility falls on Trumps shoulders. It is not just his desire, but his Constitutional responsibility and duty to undo all the treasonous acts of the former fraudulent administration. Shipping dangerous criminals out of America is not an act of war, but an act of restoration of Constitutional stability, and securing the blessings of peace and domestic tranquility to our nation. These judges are trying to block the Constitution. That is blatant treason. They are literally aiding and abetting our enemies, which is a Constitutional definition of treason. There is no immunity for treason for anyone in this country… especially a president and elected officials, and appointed judges. These judges should have been locked up as soon as they signed the orders to attempt to block Trumps Constitutional actions. And they probably should have been locked up for the same charge in many of their other decisions, as well. Supreme Court judges are restricted, Constitutionally, by times of good behavior. This means every one of these judges must be conducting themselves morally and ethically while sitting on the bench. Judges Thomas and Alito are the only ones who have followed this requirement. That is the rule of law, the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution.
SuzyQ
March 21, 2025 at 3:42 pm
It cannot be treason by Constitutional definition. See Article III, Section 3, and Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States. For example, the Rosenbergs were tried and convicted in federal court for passing our nation’s atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War and were ultimately executed in 1953. They were charged, tried and convicted for espionage, not treason. Why? There was no formal Congressional declaration of war at the time of their crimes. In fact, there’s been no such declaration since the conclusion of the Second World War.
MH/Duuuval
March 21, 2025 at 11:37 pm
Article III judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.
SuzyQ
March 22, 2025 at 12:36 am
It can be done without impeachment, for the Constitution affords Congress with the explicit authority to remove their judgeships and even the jurisdiction and scope of their judicial offices.
See Article I, Section 8, Clause 9; Article III, Section 1; and Article III, Section 2.
In particular, the Exceptions Clause of the Constitution blows the mind of first-time readers. Most lawyers have never read the 4-page document. They took a class in college about it and read a textbook, just as I did, without ever reading the actual Constitution itself.
Skeptic
March 22, 2025 at 9:38 am
According to the Con Law professor at your law school, who interprets the Constitution? Please don’t tell me it was the commenters on an internet news site.
MH/Duuuval
March 22, 2025 at 3:56 pm
I don’t think so:
AI Overview
“Federal judges can only be removed from office through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, as outlined in the Constitution.”
MH/Duuuval
March 22, 2025 at 10:44 am
“This means every one of these judges must be conducting themselves morally and ethically while sitting on the bench. Judges Thomas and Alito are the only ones who have followed this requirement.”
Whoa, someone has been asleep for the preceding decade. Thomas and Alito have been found to be recipients of large gifts which they believe do not apply to them based upon their reading of the judicial code of ethics.
SuzyQ
March 22, 2025 at 12:27 am
Jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction) is the limiting or reducing of a court’s jurisdiction by Congress through its Constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and to exclude or remove federal cases from state courts.
Congress may define the jurisdiction of the judiciary through the simultaneous use of two powers. First, Congress holds the power to create (and, implicitly, to define the jurisdiction of) federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (e.g., Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and various other Article I and Article III tribunals). This court-creating power is granted both in the Congressional powers clause (Art. I, § 8, Cl. 9) and in the judicial vesting clause (Art. III, § 1). Secondly, Congress has the power to make exceptions to, and regulations of, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by “knocking [federal courts] … out of the game.”
SuzyQ
March 22, 2025 at 11:56 am
Most commenters on this site have never read the 4-page document known as the Constitution, much less the more lengthy Constitution of Florida. Just put down Das Kapital for a brief moment and read our nation’s and our state’s founding documents.
MH/Duuuval
March 22, 2025 at 3:29 pm
Is Suzy Q is channeling Q Anon? Could be.
It is one thing to use direct quotes from Google AI, but it isn’t necessary to repeat them word for word. That’s sometimes referred to as trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer.
Those Founding Documents Q is blathering about included some nasty stuff that has gradually been REMOVED with good cause from the Constitution via amendments.
Neither Q nor most people have cracked Das Kapital, and why should they when there is plenty of evidence demonstrating the corrupting forces of unrestrained capitalism?
Which is why Trump keeps up the cultural war, which is a smokescreen for blowing a hold in the federal budget and limiting services for those who require them.
MH/Duuuval
March 22, 2025 at 3:32 pm
Which is why Trump keeps up the culture war, a smokescreen for blowing a huge hold in the federal budget and serving as a rationale for limiting access to services and government programs that benefit THE REST OF US.
MH/Duuuval
March 22, 2025 at 3:32 pm
huge hole, not hold
Oscar
March 26, 2025 at 4:54 pm
DeSantis is entirely correct as is Speaker Johnson when they assert that lower federal courts can be dissolved, restructured or defunded. Similarly, Justice Roberts is correct when he notes that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” However, these are not judicial decisions. They are political decisions made by low-level activist judges acting ultra vires. As such, they are illegitimate and may be disregarded.
Tjb
March 27, 2025 at 6:48 pm
Ron is pushing a fascism agenda…
suppression of opposition
Comments are closed.