Rouge, Activist Judges - Who Are They & What Can Be Done?
Atomic Truth
March 21, 2025
The United States is at a pivotal moment in our nations history. 77 million Americans showed up to cast their votes this past November, for Donald Trump, removing the Democrats from power in the White House, winning a slim majority in the House, flipping the Senate to Red and the Supreme Court remains in a conservative majority. Many had voted for Democrats their entire lives. Many had not voted in many past elections. Many were frustrated with the economy and unchecked immigration. Whatever the reasons, it was enough for Trump to win the election, in the hopes of completely changing course from the country’s trajectory. If we can have one take away from the release of the JFK files that were just released, may I suggest that it be this; factions within a government system can and will work against the interests of it’s own citizens, if matters of corruption and ethics violations go unchecked.
A government, its political leaders and how it functions, is a reflection of its own citizens. In all its glory or failures. If their elected representatives are getting away with “all the dastardly deeds”, to take a line from Al Green, D-TX, it’s because the people allow it. President Gerald R. Ford's so eloquently articulated this in a joint address to Congress regarding the economy in 1974.
“If Congress behaves badly, it is ultimately because the people allow it, through their elected representatives."~ Gerald R. Ford
Al Green, broke decorum rules with his outburst. He said it was worth it to warn people about ‘losing their social security’. And only because other representatives suggested a censure, was it brought to the floor for a vote. Below is a breakdown of who is ‘okay’ with outbursts when the President is addressing Congress. Only 10 Democrats voted to censure Al Green.
By and large, we can surmise that the Democrats (at least 198) have little respect for House decorum rules. Perhaps the people of Houston, TX, will decide to move on from Congressman Green, in the next election. We will see.
Now that we have discussed the behavior in Congress - what we put up with as citizens, as far as our elected officials - let’s move on to the judicial branch. Presidents have the authority to nominate Federal judges, as well as Supreme Court judges and the Senate has the power of confirming these nominations.
Past Presidents Federal Judge Appointments
*Clarence Thomas is the Chief Justice and longest running justice to currently serve on the Supreme Court. All federal judges and SCOTUS judges, have life time appointments. Supreme Court judges can only be removed by impeachment.
Federal judges can be removed by impeachment and under Article Ill Section 1, “failure to serve during good behavior”, a condition of employment under the Constitution.
Now that we have discussed the size and scope of the judicial branch and removal methods, let’s talk about activist judges and code of conduct.
An activist judge is a judicial officer who takes an active role in shaping the law through their decisions, often by:
✔️ Interpreting laws in a way that goes beyond their literal meaning
✔️Making decisions based on personal opinions or values rather than the law
✔️Taking a more prominent role in policy-making, often by striking down laws or government actions
This can be seen as a departure from the traditional role of judges, who are expected to interpret the law impartially and apply it to the facts of a case.
In this context, let’s look at a some examples of activist judges.
1.) Arthur F. Engoron
The State of New York vs. Donald Trump and sons (list company LLC’s) - judgement summary 2024
Summary: Charges allege and judgement rendered that Trump and his company manipulated financial statements to secure more favorable terms on loans and insurance deals. The case is currently on appeal.
✔️Why this case may have been seen as political in nature and the associated activist actions, by Judge Engoron:
✳️AG Leticia James, ran on a campaign promise to “Get Trump”. Charges were brought against Trump in 2022. Many see the timing as politically motivated, since Trump had announced he was running for president in 2024. Campaigning on “getting” a specific political target, fits the definition of activism in the judicial branch. While this is not an exact reflection upon the judge overseeing the case, it is an important element to understanding the case, as a whole.
✳️Gag order placed on a defendant, during the trial. Usually gag orders are used to “protect the sanctity of the judicial process” and only in extraordinary situations. When only applied to the defendant, this maybe seen as an uneven use of this restraint and also a violation of the defendant’s first amendment rights.
✳️Penalties and Sanctions: Engoron issued several penalties against Trump and his legal team, including sanctions for discovery violations. Critics argue that these penalties were overly harsh and may have been motivated by bias rather than a fair interpretation of the law.
✳️Denial of Recusal: Engoron's decision not to recuse himself despite the 90-second interaction with Adam Leitman Bailey has been criticized. Some argue that the interaction, regardless of its brevity, should have been grounds for recusal to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
✳️Rulings Favoring the State: Engoron's rulings on various motions have often favored the New York State Attorney General's office. Critics argue that these rulings were not always justified by the evidence and may have been influenced by a bias against Trump.
✳️Public Statements and Conduct/ Perception of Bias: Some have pointed to Engoron's public statements and conduct as evidence of bias. For example, his detailed account of the interaction with Bailey and his strong language in rulings have been seen as indications of a judge who is not neutral.
✳️Rapid Rulings: Engoron's handling of the case, including the speed at which he made certain rulings, has been criticized. Some argue that this rapid pace may have been influenced by a desire to see the case resolved quickly, potentially at the expense of a thorough and fair process.
✳️Interpretation of Laws: Engoron's interpretations of relevant laws and regulations have been scrutinized. Critics argue that his interpretations sometimes favored the state's position and were not always consistent with broader legal principles or precedents.
This entire case was seen by many as very much like Lavrentiy Beria’s quote “Show me the man and I'll find you the crime". Trump’s litany of legal cases during this time, was unprecedented, for a former president.
2.Judge Humberto Acosta
March 2023: The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) charged hundreds of migrants who rushed a border gate in El Paso with misdemeanor rioting charges. These charges were brought against the migrants in response to incidents where large groups attempted to push past state troopers and National Guard members to enter the U.S.
Summary: Judge Acosta later dismissed many of these rioting cases. In one instance, 211 cases were dismissed, and previously, 140 other cases had been dismissed before being revived by the local district attorney presenting the misdemeanor cases to a grand jury, which indicted all the migrants. Out of the almost a thousand at the El Paso border that day, only 7 migrants were charged with felony rioting and assaulting a public servant. Two additional suspects were sought on similar charges. Judge Acosta dismissed the others and the migrants involved gained entry into the United States.
✔️Why this case may have been seen as political in nature and the associated activist actions, by Judge Acosta:
✳️ A group of migrants, primarily men from Venezuela, overwhelmed Texas National Guard forces and broke through a border fence along the Rio Grande. The judge’s ruling to release the border rioters on their own recognizance, was seen by many as a reflection of his own bias about immigration policy, by treating these cases in the same way as any other American citizen would have been treated, as opposed to a violent invasion for foreign nationals. The SB4 bill in Texas, was also in effect at that time, making it a state felony to enter the state of Texas illegally. Some of the migrants were caught on video cutting razor wire and breaching the barrier. This was a very controversial decision met with fierce criticism, not only by Texas political leaders, but by the general American public as well. The incident in March of 2023, was the second incident of its kind, in the same month, at the same part of border in El Paso. This ruling by judge Acosta, unfortunately, set a bad precedent for others that may try similar tactics to gain entry into the United States.
Next, we move along to the star of the show today, in our talks of activist judges. As we segue into current events with our next judge on deck, hold the last border incident in your memory and a few details about it. 1) Of those that were charged in the 2 incidents involving riots at the border in El Paso, most were men, Venezuela nationals. The transnational gang in our next report, involves Tren de Aragua(TdA), a Venezuelan prison gang.
2) Nicolás Maduro released thousands of prisoners, over the years, some may theorize this has been a strategic move, which was met with international scorn, in some cases. The U.S. does not currently recognize Maduro as the legitimate president. Many say that Maduro was not the official winner of the election, in July of 2024. He is currently wanted on charges in the U.S. and there is a reward, which was recently increased, right before Trump took office at the end of January. This is why Maduro is referred to as the “Maduro Regime”, because the U.S. does not recognize him as a democratically elected president, rather a criminal regime that usurped its power and never let go. Okay, onward!
3.Judge James Boasberg
Judge James E. Boasberg issued a court order on Saturday, March 15, 2025, to halt the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members and other immigrants. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, which argued that President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful and violated the due process rights of the individuals being deported. Boasberg verbally ordered the government to turn around the planes if they were carrying non-citizens, stating “Any plane containing these folks - because it's going to take off or it's in the air - needs to be returned to the United States... This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately".
Video : here
Trump invokes the Alien Enemies Act, on March 15, 2025
A few things to consider here. These ‘non-profits’ - the ACLU and Democracy Forward- have kicked up this dust storm. Judge Boesberg, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2011 and previously served as a judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under President George W. Bush, chose to make this ruling, even if it was out of his jurisdiction. He could have ruled in a variety of ways, but this is the path he chose. This court intervention has a narrowed focus, in my view, and that is to insert its authority into the deportation process. Immigration was a top issue for American voters in this last election and the courts intervention could hinder the executive branch’s ability to conduct reparation flights and expel criminal illegal aliens from the United States interior.
✔️ Recent Developments: On March 22, 2025, Judge Boasberg scolded the Justice Department for its conduct during a court hearing, describing the government's filings as "intemperate and disrespectful" and expressing concerns about the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act.
✔️Current Status: The judge is considering whether to modify his temporary restraining order to allow for the deportation of individuals who admit to being members of the gang Tren de Aragua, while still questioning the broader implications and legality of the administration's actions.
✔️ Impeachment Efforts: Republican lawmakers, including Representative Brandon Gill of Texas, have introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg, arguing that he abused his power by interfering with the president's enforcement of the law.
Critics of the critics of Judge Boesberg, state that “just because you don’t like the ruling doesn’t mean you can ignore it”. Not liking the ruling and being out of jurisdiction are not the same. We will now see how far this impeachment hearing will go, it’s now back to our elected officials to clean up the mess of a potential judicial overreach situation.
It’s also worth mentioning, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, has made a public statement regarding judge Boesberg and his ruling. This was in response to President Trump’s Truth Social post regarding Judge Boesberg’s order.
Judge Robert’s response is below.
“F
or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in the statement distributed by the Supreme Court's public information office. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."~ Judge Roberts, Supreme Court Justice
For context, both Boesberg and Roberts were elevated in their careers by George W. Bush. Boesberg was nominated as a federal judge by Obama.
As discussed earlier in this post, impeachment is a high bar to reach. It requires a super majority of 67 senators for impeachment. Currently, there are too many Bush era/neocon’s/RINO’s - whatever you want to label that crowd- not America first Republicans, to even get a simple majority. An additional 17 Democrat senators is also needed. It’s going to take some movement in the court of public opinion.
Article III Project - What You Can Do
The Gateway Pundit is asking for action; sign a petition and contact your representatives. You can review that information here. I still think Article III, section 1 should be considered for code of conduct violations, for activist judges. I will be mentioning this to my own representatives, when I make contact regarding this issue. Remember; if these judges can get away from the “letter of the law” ruling on bias and opinion, they can also pull moves like this on the average citizen. I’ll leave you will Gerald Ford’s quote, once more.
“If Congress behaves badly, it is ultimately because the people allow it, through their elected representatives."~ Gerald R. Ford
What do you think? 💭 🤔 Is President Trump acting within the legal framework of the Alien Enemies Act? Do you think activist judges have any place in the court system? Let me know in the comments!
Here is something We the People can do… If you scroll to the bottom of this paper we wrote you will find a form to fill out and send Judicial Complaint Template https://merikndrax.substack.com/p/executive-order-14157-and-the-judicial
They. Can be removed and they should