The deep state and its allies have launched a judicial insurrection against President Trump, and Chief Justice John Roberts has effectively admitted he is not doing his job to stop it.
Roberts made a rare public statement back in March, criticizing Trump and other Republicans who have suggested impeaching judges to prevent them from taking it upon themselves to make national policy through injunctions. Yet Roberts refused to address the underlying issue, which he dodged again in public remarks Wednesday.
This from discernreport.com.
Judge Lawrence Vilardo asked Roberts in an interview in Buffalo, New York:
What do you think of these calls for impeachment of judges based on the decisions that they’ve made?
Repeating the substance of his comments in March, the chief justice said:
Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions.
Vilardo responded:
That’s what you’re there for.
Roberts agreed:
That’s what we’re there for.
Republicans aren’t calling for the impeachment of justices because they disagree with one particular decision—they’re exasperated because judge after judge after judge is effectively usurping the president’s authority by issuing so many nationwide injunctions.
Again, Roberts overlooked the underlying issue.
When woke bureaucrats stared down the barrel of a second Trump term, they strategized about how best to tie the new president’s hands.
Public-sector unions made new collective bargaining agreements to protect work-from-home perks. Employees changed their titles to hide ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’ Perhaps most importantly, bureaucrats and their allies outside the administration geared up to sue the Trump administration, targeting friendly judges.
Many of these groups also hand-picked jurisdictions with judges more likely to give them the injunctions they seek.
According to the Congressional Research Service, judges issued 86 nationwide injunctions against President Trump in his first administration, with 36 of them involving immigration and 10 involving federal funding related to immigration. By contrast, judges issued only 28 nationwide injunctions against The Obiden Regime. Between Jan. 20 and March 27 of this year, judges issued 17 injunctions—more than half of the number in Obiden’s entire term.
The judges—many of them appointed by communists/globalists, surprise surprise!—have taken the opportunity to issue “nationwide injunctions.” While temporary injunctions allow a judge to protect one of the parties in a case from harm while the court considers the case, judges have weaponized this power, claiming to protect people across the country who are not parties to the suit.
This practice of “judge shopping” enables activist groups to succeed in early stages of litigation before ultimately failing when the case reaches the Supreme Court. This gives judges a chance to carry out a judicial insurrection. It also gives the case the appearance of success, motivating the leftist groups and their supporters, while tying up the government in the meantime—all in pursuit of a vain claim.
The deluge of injunctions calls for a robust response from the nation’s highest court—or, at the very least, direction from the man who heads the entire U.S. judicial system, Chief Justice Roberts.
Roberts only got involved after Trump expressed exasperation over the injunctions.
Trump wrote:
I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do.
This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against the judge in question, but Trump and other Republicans have taken efforts to address the systemic issue, as well.
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the injunctions last month.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025, establishing a three-judge panel to swiftly review injunctions or other forms of declaratory relief against the president and the executive branch, with a quick appeal process to the Supreme Court.
Lee said the judges:
[H]ave presumed to run the military, the civil service, foreign aid, and HR departments across the Executive Branch—blatantly unconstitutional overreach.
Meanwhile, Trump issued a memo in March directing the heads of executive agencies to request that judges follow the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which requires the party requesting an injunction to put up “security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Rule 65(c) may not apply to every legal case, however.
Each of these efforts addresses one aspect of the problem, and Lee’s bill would likely address the issue most effectively. However, there is one person who has authority over the U.S. judiciary and could direct judges to be more circumspect before they issue nationwide injunctions that effectively make policy.
His name is… drumroll please… John Roberts.
When Roberts says reversing lower court mistakes is ‘what we’re there for,’ he’s exactly right. In fact, as head of the judiciary, addressing major nationwide issues like the judicial insurrection is what he’s there for, specifically.
Instead of complaining about Trump’s call to impeach judges, Roberts should solve the underlying problem himself by outlining how judges should act when considering temporary injunctions.
Final thoughts: Roberts is sitting tight. He will not act as he appropriately should. His indiscretions are being held against him, threatened release if he performs his job. Otherwise, he would have acted on behalf of the unconstitutionally held J6-ers.
As soon as the innocents are safe, the Epstein tapes will be released and Roberts’ career and perhaps his life too will have come to an end.
