by
Leah
Millis-Pool/Getty
Images)
Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Vivia
Chen
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
“The
Ex-Careerist,” here.
ARE
WE
AT
A
POINT
where
it’s
just
no
big
deal
that
the
president
of
the
United
States
can
use
the
government
to
go
after
a
member
of
the
judiciary
he
personally
dislikes?
Yup,
we’re
there.
But
we
shouldn’t
be.
Just
a
few
days
ago,
the
Justice
Department
filed
a
misconduct complaint against
U.S.
District
Court
Chief
Judge
James
Boasberg.
The
reason,
according
to
Attorney
General
Pam Bondi’s
announcement on
X,
is
that
he
made
“improper
public
comments
about
President
Trump
and
his
Administration”
at
a
judicial
conference
in
March
that
“undermined
the
integrity
of
the
judiciary,
and
we
will
not
stand
for
that.”
That’s
right
–
the
DOJ
“won’t
stand”
for
bashing
the
judiciary!
That’s
a
mighty
bodacious
statement,
considering
how
Trump
has personally
gone
after
judges.
The
complaint
itself
is
riddled
with
errors,
starting
with
the
fact
that
the
judge
spoke
at
a
closed
session,
not
a
public
forum,
as
the
DOJ
claims.
And,
according
to
Georgetown
Law
Center
professor
Steve
Vladeck
(who
goes
into
the weeds),
Boasberg
was
conveying
concerns
by
colleagues
at
the
conference,
not
stating
his
personal
views.
Oh,
details,
details.
Facts
notwithstanding,
the
DOJ
accuses
Boasberg
of
violating
judicial
ethics
code,
alleging
that
the
judge
“attempted
to
improperly
influence
Chief
Justice
Roberts”
and
other
federal
judges
by
expressing
“his
belief
that
the
Trump
Administration
would
‘disregard
rulings
of
federal
courts’
and
trigger
‘a
constitutional
crisis.’”
The
complaint
then
goes
on
to
say
that
“Boasberg
had
no
basis”
for
that
view
because
“the
Trump
Administration
has
always
complied
with
all
court
orders”
–
a
point
that
the
DOJ
makes
several
times.
That’s
ha-ha
funny,
considering
that
the
administration
deported
over
200
Venezuelan
migrants
to
El
Salvador
in
clear defiance of
Boasberg’s
order.
And
let’s
not
forget
how
former
top
DOJ
official
Emil
Bove
–
now
a
freshly
installed
federal
judge
–
allegedly
said
“fuck
you”
to
judicial
orders.
(Bove denied that
he
said
anything
of
that
sort,
despite
incriminating text
messages.)
But
the
real
hoot was
the
sly
suggestion
that
Justice
John
Roberts
needs
to
be
protected
from
conniving
baddies
like
Boasberg.
“Because
the
Chief
Justice
would
review
Judge
Boasberg’s
decisions,”
warns
the
DOJ,
“his
remark
was
especially
problematic
as
he
attempted
to
prejudice
the
very
court
that
would
scrutinize
his
decisions.”
To
buttress
that
point,
the
complaint
quotes
Berkeley
Law
School
Professor
John
Yoo
who
asserted
on
Fox
News
that
Boasberg
was
“trying
to
entrap
the
Chief
Justice
of
the
United
States
and
get
him
on
the
record
and
join
him
to
almost
approve
what
he’s
doing
to
spark
this
fight
with
President
Trump.”
(History
buffs
will
recall
that
Yoo
was
one
of
the
leading
architects
behind
the
infamous “torture
memos” during
George
W.
Bush’s
administration.)
It
all
seems
a
bit
insulting
to
Roberts,
as
if
he
can’t
be
trusted
to
stand
his
own
ground. Is
the
DOJ
implying
that
the
chief
justice
is
a
dolt
who’s
easily
hoodwinked?
And
that
Boasberg
is
some
sort
of
judicial
Svengali
dispatched
from
the
deep
state?
Though
Trump
once
called
him
a
“Radical
Left
Lunatic
Judge”
on
social
media,
Boasberg
has
a
reputation
for
being
a
moderate
who’s
friendly
with
both
the
left
and
the
right.
In
fact,
Boasberg
and
Justice
Brett
Kavanaugh were
roomies at
Yale
Law
School
and
reportedly
became
close
friends.
I’m
no
expert
but
the
charges
in
the
DOJ
complaint
seem
ridiculously
lame.
Even
assuming
that
Boasberg
shouted
from
the
rooftops
that
this
administration
might
disregard
court
rulings
and
foment
a
constitutional
crisis,
aren’t
those
legitimate
topics
for
discussion?
I’d
argue
that
they’re
the
most
pressing
issues
facing
the
judiciary
today.
Yet,
the
DOJ
wants
the
judge
disciplined
for
having
the
gall
to
say
those
things
out
loud.
Among
its
demands,
the
DOJ
asks
that
Boasberg
be
removed
from
a
critical
immigration
case
(J.G.G.
v.
Trump),
publicly
reprimanded,
and
possibly
impeached.
The
complaint
is
hogwash,
say
legal
scholars.
“This
is
the
sort
of
laughable
thing
that
should
go
straight
into
the
trash,” writes
Joyce
Vance on
Substack.
“Even
if
it’s
referred
for
investigation,
because
it
came
from
the
Justice
Department
and
the
court
feels
some
need
to
show
it
took
it
seriously,
it
shouldn’t
go
anywhere.”
That
view
was
shared
by Thomas
Lee,
a
professor
at
Fordham
Law
School,
who
tells
me:
“it’s
hard
to
see
what
he
is
alleged
to
have
said
violates
any
judicial
ethics
rules.”
And Radhika
Rao,
a
professor
at
the
UC
San
Francisco
Law
School,
calls
the
charges
“ridiculous
–
nowhere
near
grounds
for
impeachment!”
What’s
ironic
and
shameless
is
that
the
complaint
keeps
insisting
that
“Boasberg’s
actions
have
harmed
the
integrity
and
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
of
the
judiciary”
when
it’s
politically
charged
stunts
like
this
that
sow
mistrust
in
our
justice
system.
But
maybe
that’s
the
long
game:
to
erode
faith
in
our
judicial
branch
–
which,
as
it
now
stands,
is
the
only
check
against
Trump’s
authoritarianism.
The
more
immediate
goal
is
obvious:
to
silence
judges
through
thuggery.
And
what
better
way
to
achieve
that
objective
than
to
make
an
example
of
an
establishment
judge
like
Boasberg.
The
message
is
clear:
if
you
make
a
critical
remark
or
rule
against
us,
we’ll
come
after
you
using
the
full
force
of
the
government.
Which
brings
us
back
to
Roberts. The
judiciary
needs
to
show
it
won’t
be
cowed
and
speak
up.
And
the
one
who
should
be
speaking
the
loudest
is
Roberts,
both
because
he
was
portrayed
in
the
complaint
as
the
object
of
Boasberg’s
alleged
manipulation,
and
because,
well,
he’s
the
chief
justice.
Whether
he
likes
it
or
not,
he’s
in
the
hot
seat.
No
doubt,
he’s
been
feeling
that
heat
for
a
while.
In
March,
Roberts
made
an
oblique
(and
rare)
retort
to
Trump’s
attack
on
judges.
“Impeachment
is
not
how
you
register
disagreement
with
decisions.”
That
was
a
promising
start.
Since
then,
though,
he’s
danced
around
the
subject,
dispensing
the usual
crumpets about
judicial
independence.
Roberts
has
long
styled
himself
as
a
guardian
of
the
Court’s
legitimacy,
the
steady
hand
above
the
political
fray.
But
as
Trump
escalates
his
assault
on
the
judiciary,
that
image
is
wearing
awfully
thin.
Now,
Roberts
has
been
handed
another
opportunity
–
this
time,
wrapped
as
a
farcical
complaint
–
to
defend
the
judiciary
that
he
holds
so
dear.
So
what’s
it
going
to
be,
Chief
Justice?
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
The
Ex-Careerist….
Vivia
Chen writes “The
Ex-Careerist” column
on
Substack
where
she
unleashes
her
unvarnished
views
about
the
intersection
of
work,
life,
and
politics.
A
former
lawyer,
she
was
an
opinion
columnist
at
Bloomberg
Law
and
The
American
Lawyer.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack
by
clicking
here:
