Can We Start Impeaching Judges Now?

Judges are supposed to use judgment. 

It’s in the name of the position. They aren’t supposed to become a second executive branch or override the legislature unless it violates the Constitution, and they certainly aren’t supposed to become political actors who run campaigns to influence public opinion. 

Ah, well, what the hell? It’s almost impossible to impeach a federal judge unless they have been convicted of an actual crime, and when you have the power of life and death over so many people, it’s tempting to think that you should have it over everybody all the time. 

I covered Schiltz’s bogus list of alleged “contempt” by the Trump DOJ earlier this year.

Now Schiltz is backpedaling on his accusations. What appeared to be at the time—according to Schiltz—intentional defiance of court orders, Schiltz now describes as incompetence by…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 17, 2026

In a stunning political move, the chief judge of the Minneapolis federal bench disclosed the behind the scenes collaboration between all judges to thwart legal proceedings related to immigration cases this year.

Patrick Schiltz, who admitted his longtime involvement in a pro-migrant nonprofit, reveals how judges remained on their cell phones nonstop to halt deportation proceedings. And rather than evaluate each case individually—as is required—the judges developed pro forma orders (as I predicted) to immediately stop cases in their tracks.

This is something:

Schiltz: “Some judges built templates of legal orders so they could respond quickly to some of the detention issues that were arising again and again.”

Correction to first post: It appears Schiltz recently stepped down as chief judge. 

According to Schiltz, Schiltz and his colleagues are the only ones stopping the U.S. from turning into a brutal regime. 

This is some level of megalomania:

Schiltz: “The rule of law to democracy is like oxygen to a human body. It is something that you absolutely need to survive, and yet it’s something that people just take for granted.

Obedience to court orders, Judge Schiltz said, is why people feel secure owning a home, saving money, getting married and having children.

‘You walk down the street, and you assume you’re generally safe because of the law. It’s the rule of law. If you don’t have it, you have either anarchy or you have authoritarianism. You have Russia or you have China or you have North Korea.”

A case in point is Judge Patrick Schiltz, who sat down with The New York Times to discuss the conspiracy among Minneapolis federal judges to thwart the Trump administration’s efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens from Minnesota because they didn’t like the policy. 

He explains, in loving detail, how they threw out their responsibilities to judge cases by the facts before them and created a system that pretty much automatically impeded the application of federal law. And he’s proud of it as a card-carrying member of the #resistance. 

Now, I am a big fan of the rule of law, and I believe the law applies to all of us; if the president or his agents break the law, they should be held accountable. 

But the same holds true for judges: it is not their role to create systems that decide which laws apply to them and which do not, and they should not take pains to thwart the enforcement of laws they do not like. Creating systems where the decisions are not based on the application of the law and just rubber-stamping decisions not applicable to the case before you is banana republic stuff.

At issue, Schiltz says, was ICE’s failure to follow court orders in a timely manner, but he leaves out a basic fact that changes the story entirely: the orders were churned out at such a pace because the judges never actually considered the cases that it was literally impossible for ICE to keep up. 

In other words, the judges intentionally made it impossible for ICE to meet the deadlines, and then the judges used that as an excuse to torture ICE’s lawyers and the federal officers doing their jobs. 

One of the key issues left out of the Times story was this important fact: as the cases went up the ladder to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration was vindicated in most of them. It was the judges who were ignoring the underlying law, not the Trump administration. Most of the decisions were intentional delaying tactics, using cookie-cutter, often sloppy reasoning based on feelz, not the law. 

One of the key tells in the story appeared to be a throwaway line that would appeal to liberal sensibilities, but which revealed the true motives of the judges: 

Homeland Security officials claimed that the agency was targeting immigrants who were “the worst of the worst.” But the district’s judges said most of the detainees who appeared on their dockets seemed to be ordinary people with homes and jobs.

It’s not the judges’ right to determine which illegal aliens get to stay and which should be deported, outside the narrow question of whether the deportation is itself legal. It does not matter if they agree with the law; their job is to apply it consistently with the Constitution. 

Obviously, that was not their attitude. They focused on getting the results they wanted, and they disliked the policy. 

Some District Courts are more likely to lean in this direction than others. The Ninth Circuit, for instance, was famous for years as the court that often was overturned. You would think that if they wanted only to apply the law, they would learn that they needed to change. 

But they didn’t care about the law, just the outcomes. 

These judges seem to share that attitude, which is one commonly held these days, because Orange Man Bad. 

Editor’s Note: The Democrat Party has been infected by socialism, and it’s spreading FAST. Democrats are claiming there’s nothing to worry about, but we know the truth.

Help us continue to shine a light on the socialist takeover by joining HotAir VIP.  Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.