Republicans, Democrats clash over activist judges at tense hearing
In a recent hearing, Democrats and Republicans clashed over the issue of “activist judges” blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda. The House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittees on the Constitution and on courts held a joint hearing to discuss legislation that would limit district judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. However, the bill is currently stalled due to an unrelated fight on proxy voting that paralyzed the House floor.
During the hearing, Democrats attempted to press Republicans on the issue of judicial impeachments, which is a topic pushed by conservatives but has not gained much traction among House GOP leaders. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., criticized a resolution targeting U.S. district Judge James Boasberg for impeachment, noting that no Republicans at the hearing supported the idea.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., co-chairing the hearing, expressed frustration with the Democrats’ focus on impeachment rather than discussing the bills at hand. He highlighted the importance of addressing the issue of judges blocking the administration’s actions, citing a similar bill supported by the Biden administration’s solicitor general last year.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., compared the push for judicial impeachments to past impeachment inquiries into former President Joe Biden, labeling them as “fake impeachments.” However, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, emphasized the need to address judges who are acting politically to obstruct the administration’s agenda.
Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., noted that one goal of the hearing was to raise awareness of the issue and potentially prompt Chief Justice Roberts to take action to control the courts. It remains uncertain when Issa’s bill will receive a vote, as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced that House floor activity was canceled for the rest of the week.
The debate over “activist judges” and nationwide injunctions continues to be a contentious issue between Democrats and Republicans, with both sides advocating for different approaches to addressing judicial interference in the administration’s agenda.
