Greg Penglis, May 9, 2025
Rationale:
Assumptions are stronger than truth. People will take their wrong assumptions to the grave, rather than learn or even see the truth. The Supreme Court judges are called Justices. Judges are appointed for life. Judges have immunity for all their actions. They can issue orders. Those orders have to be complied with. They can strike down laws, interpret the Constitution, say what the laws say, and instruct juries on how they have to decide cases… None of that is true. Every one is a wrong assumption.
Judicial tyranny started with the bogus decision of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Ironically part of the opinion was correct, that laws repugnant to the Constitution do not exist. However the Supreme Court under Chief Judge (Article III says Judge, not Justice) John Marshall, then wrote into that opinion all kinds of new powers, usurped for themselves, that are specifically NOT in the Constitution, which is the one thing no government entity can do. The Constitution is a strict list of delegated powers, ratified by the States, which is the source of all federal government power. If this were not sufficient, the 10th Amendment specifically bans the federal government from any power not delegated, as all such powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. That’s the Republic.
The made up powers are in the first paragraph above and all come under the umbrella of “Judicial Review.” This is where the Federal Judiciary gets to pass judgment on virtually everything done in the Executive Branch under the President, and the Legislative Branch under the Congress. But this is not a reciprocal power, because even though the smallest district judge thinks they can order the President to take any action they write down, or strike down any law of the entire Congress, no member of Congress can strike down an opinion of the Supreme Court, nor can any bureaucrat in the Administration write an order for any judge to follow. So from a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, as the Constitution mandates through Articles I,II and III, the Supreme Court simply overruled the Constitution in the Marbury opinion, and declared unilaterally that the Judiciary has supremacy over the entire rest of the federal government, and can decide and implement any decision upon the entire nation. That is the definition of tyranny.
That is insane, and yet that is what is taught in the colleges and universities, in the law schools, practiced in the law firms, and exercised by judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. It is a pyramid of self-perpetuating tyrannical megalomanic psychosis, and it has been building, opinion by opinion, order by order, injunction by injunction, stay by stay, and through new, novel and totally irrational legal rules, tests, practices, “standing,” and other made up manifestations of the courts and judges wildest imaginations, and so now they actually believe in all their own lies and propaganda like it is and always has been the natural order of things, to the point where the entire Federal Judiciary will, for example, defend any individual district judge directing the President of the United States to comply with an “order,” no matter how absurd or illegal, and if the President, the Congress, or any other individual, group, corporation or other entity objects, they can be found in contempt, jailed and fined, all based on nothing, nothing in the Constitution, nothing in law, nothing in regulations, or policies, or the decisions of juries. Judges now think they are immortal.
And neither the Congress, nor the President, nor the Governors, the State Attorney Generals, or the State Legislatures, have exercised their legitimate and constitutional authority to stuff the federal judges and courts back into their Article III Constitutional box. That is all about to change.
This bill when passed will remove an entire list of federal judges for violating “Good Behavior.” Whereas impeachment is specifically delegated as a procedure to remove the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers for high crimes and misdemeanors, which is an Article II provision governing the Executive, Judges have to live up to Good Behavior, which is an entirely different standard in Article III which governs the Judiciary. One could argue that to impeach a judge is unconstitutional because good behavior is a far different standard, and far easier to fall short of, than impeachment. Impeachment is for violations of law, which is negative and illegal behavior, whereas Good Behavior has to be exercised through positive and honest action to be maintained. An Article II Civil Officer who has done nothing good, but not committed any crimes or misdemeanors, can’t be impeached. But a judge who exercises less that good behavior, just average behavior, or does nothing, can be removed.
So how does the Congress determine “good behavior” in order to judge whether a judge should be removed or not. The standard is the record of their behavior. This is self-creating and the exclusive result of the conscious actions of the judges themselves. They can’t be ordered to engage in bad behavior, but if they were, that alone would be less than good behavior and again would be grounds for removal. Remember that the standard is not bad behavior, but less than good behavior, because good behavior is the standard. It is impossible to list all the ways that federal judges can come with to engage in less than good behavior, just as it’s impossible to tell your children all the things they could do that would be less than good behavior. So this has to be case by case, judge by judge, simply on a decision of Congress whether a judge has lived up to the standard of good behavior. If not, then Congress by simple vote, can remove any judge up through Supreme Court judges. It could be argued also that the President can fire any federal judge also for failing to faithfully execute the laws or for violations of the Constitution. But the scope of this bill is for the Congress.
I asked Grok AI on “X” just using logic and reason, to tell me how the Founders would have given federal district judges power over the Congress and the President? This is the answer I received.
“The Founders, guided by logic and reason, would not have intended federal district judges to wield power over Congress or the President in a way that disrupts the constitutional balance of powers. Their design in the Constitution reflects a clear separation of powers, with checks and balances to prevent any branch—legislative, executive, or judicial—from dominating the others. Here’s a reasoned analysis of how they approached judicial authority:
Judicial Role and Limits: The Founders established the judiciary, including federal district courts, under Article III to interpret laws and resolve disputes, not to govern or override the political branches. District judges, as lower court officials, were envisioned as handling specific cases within their jurisdiction, not issuing sweeping mandates that control Congress or the President. Their authority is confined to adjudicating “cases” and “controversies,” not setting national policy.
Supremacy of the Constitution: The Founders placed the Constitution above all branches, with the judiciary tasked to ensure laws and actions align with it. However, this power (later articulated as judicial review in Marbury v. Madison) was not meant to make judges superior to Congress or the President. Instead, it’s a check to prevent unconstitutional acts, not a tool for district judges to dictate legislative or executive policy. Higher courts, like the Supreme Court, were intended to resolve significant constitutional questions, not individual district judges.
Checks on Judicial Power: The Founders embedded checks on the judiciary to prevent overreach. Congress can define the jurisdiction of lower courts (Article III, Section 2), regulate their structure, and even impeach judges. The President appoints judges with Senate approval, ensuring political accountability. These mechanisms suggest the Founders never intended district judges to hold unchecked power over the other branches.
Practical Reasoning: Logically, giving district judges—local, often solitary figures—authority to override Congress (the people’s representatives) or the President (the elected executive) would destabilize governance. A single judge issuing nationwide injunctions or blocking entire legislative acts would undermine the deliberative and democratic processes the Founders prioritized. They designed the system for stability, with the judiciary as a limited, not dominant, force.
Historical Context: The Founders, wary of centralized power from their experience under British rule, would not have entrusted unelected district judges with supremacy over elected officials. They valued representative government and executive prerogative, balancing these with judicial independence to protect rights, not to govern.
In conclusion, the Founders would have rejected the notion of federal district judges wielding broad power over Congress or the President. Their system prioritizes coequal branches, with the judiciary’s role confined to interpreting laws and checking unconstitutional acts, not dictating policy or overriding the political branches’ core functions. Any broader judicial authority would contradict their careful design of balanced governance.”
What follows now is the list of federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, who are removed from the Federal Judiciary, for not holding their office during Good Behavior. This shall be effective immediately and is NOT subject to Judicial Review, which would defeat the whole purpose of this bill, and would override the Constitution by the Judiciary yet again.
The following judges have engaged in behavior that is completely outside the Constitution, likely violates one or more federal laws, engages in judicial fantasy simply making stuff up, ordering the impossible, and through a preponderance of the record of their behavior so incredibly shames the idea of good behavior as to leave no doubt that the reasons for their immediate removal is blatantly obvious. The exercise of simply made up powers and authorities include: orders, stays, injunctions, reinstatement of funding, denying deportations, maintaining of dismissed federal employees, and a long list of usurpations of illegal and unconstitutional actions that are detailed under each judge below. The less than good behavior is established in the actions that they took, as documented by their own orders, and made part of the public record.
The following judges, including Supreme Court judges – are removed immediately from the Judiciary.
Named Federal Judges and Supreme Court Orders Against Trump’s Actions (January 20, 2025 – May 9, 2025, Chronological Order) This list has been provided by Grok AI on “X”.
Judge John Coughenour (Western District of Washington, Reagan appointee)
Order: Nationwide preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked Trump’s executive order (EO 14147) denying birthright citizenship to children of parents with temporary visas, ruling it “blatantly unconstitutional” under the 14th Amendment.
Date: January 23, 2025
Judge John J. McConnell Jr. (District of Rhode Island, Obama appointee)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Blocked Trump’s executive order and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo (M-25-13) freezing federal funding for domestic and international programs, ruling it violated Congress’s spending powers.
Date: January 31, 2025
Judge Loren AliKhan (District of Columbia, Biden appointee)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Blocked Trump’s OMB memo (M-25-13) freezing federal funding, ruling it likely unlawful and causing irreparable harm to nonprofits and small businesses. Noted persistent funding access issues despite memo rescission.
Date: February 3, 2025
Judge Deborah Boardman (District of Maryland, Biden appointee)
Order: Nationwide preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked EO 14147, reinforcing Coughenour’s ruling against denying birthright citizenship, citing the 14th Amendment.
Date: February 5, 2025
Judge Carl Nichols (District of Columbia, Trump appointee)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Halted administrative leave of 2,200 USAID employees and withdrawal of USAID workers overseas, preserving non-citizen aid programs.
Date: February 7, 2025
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (Southern District of New York, Obama appointee)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing Treasury Department records, citing unauthorized access concerns.
Date: February 8, 2025
Judge Joseph N. Laplante (District of New Hampshire, Bush appointee)
Order: Broadened preliminary injunction
Details: Expanded nationwide injunctions against EO 14147, strengthening birthright citizenship protections.
Date: February 10, 2025
Judge John D. Bates (District of Columbia, Bush appointee)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Required the CDC to restore website pages referencing race, gender identity, or sexual orientation, blocked by Trump’s EO banning such references in federal agencies.
Date: February 12, 2025
Judge Leo T. Sorokin (District of Massachusetts)
Order: Nationwide preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked EO 14147, ruling it likely unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Date: February 13, 2025
Judge James E. Boasberg (District of Columbia, Obama appointee)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Halted Trump’s plan to terminate Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, ruling it violated legal protections for independent counsels.
Date: February 13, 2025
Judge Boasberg (District of Columbia)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Blocked Trump’s Department of State from stopping all foreign aid for a 90-day “reevaluation and realignment,” ruling it violated congressional appropriations.
Date: February 13, 2025
Judge Christopher Chaung (District of Maryland)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked immigration raids at worksites targeting undocumented workers, ruling they violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
Date: February 28, 2025
Judge McConnell Jr. (District of Rhode Island)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Extended the January 31 TRO, blocking Trump’s funding freeze, ruling it “fundamentally undermines” Congress’s constitutional role. Rejected administration’s claim that memo rescission mooted the case.
Date: March 6, 2025
Judge Boardman (District of Maryland)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked Trump from firing probationary employees at 18 federal agencies, ruling mass terminations unlawful.
Date: March 7, 2025
Judge Paula Xinis (District of Maryland, Obama appointee)
Order: Order to facilitate return
Details: Ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 protection ruling, with daily updates on compliance.
Date: March 10, 2025
Judge Brian Murphy (District of Massachusetts)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Blocked fast-track deportations, ensuring migrants with protections could not be sent to third countries.
Date: March 12, 2025
Judge William Alsup (Northern District of California, Clinton appointee)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Ordered six federal agencies to reinstate ~16,000 probationary employees, ruling mass firings unlawful. Paused by Supreme Court on April 7, 2025.
Date: March 13, 2025
Judge Boasberg (District of Columbia)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for 14 days and ordered flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador to return, citing due process concerns.
Date: March 15, 2025
Judge Jesse Furman (Southern District of New York, Obama appointee)
Order: Order halting deportation
Details: Halted deportation of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, arrested for pro-Palestinian protests, allowing him to challenge detention legality.
Date: March 15, 2025
Judge Furman (Southern District of New York)
Order: Order to transfer case
Details: Ruled Khalil’s case should be heard in New Jersey, where he was detained, but upheld his right to challenge detention.
Date: March 15, 2025
Judge Boasberg (District of Columbia)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked Trump’s use of the AEA to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process, questioning its wartime applicability.
Date: March 21, 2025
Judge Jamal N. Whitehead (Western District of Washington, Biden appointee)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and halting resettlement agency funding, ruling it violated the Refugee Act of 1980 and Fifth Amendment due process.
Date: February 25, 2025
Judge Whitehead (Western District of Washington)
Order: Order for status report
Details: Required a status report by March 10, 2025, on compliance with the February 25 injunction, addressing non-compliance claims.
Date: March 5, 2025
Judge Whitehead (Western District of Washington)
Order: Order to restore funding
Details: Directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reinstate funding to refugee resettlement agencies, citing violation of the Refugee Act’s purpose.
Date: March 24, 2025
Judge Deborah Rubin (District of Maryland)
Order: Order to restore funding
Details: Ordered restoration of education grants terminated under Trump’s anti-DEI initiatives, impacting non-citizen students.
Date: March 25, 2025
Judge Ana Reyes (District of Columbia, Biden appointee)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked an executive order banning transgender individuals from military service, protecting non-citizen recruits.
Date: March 27, 2025
Judge Ellen Hollander (District of Maryland, Obama appointee)
Order: Temporary restraining order
Details: Blocked DOGE’s access to sensitive Social Security Administration records, protecting non-citizen data privacy.
Date: March 28, 2025
Judge Chaung (District of Maryland)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Ruled DOGE’s dismantling of USAID likely violated the Constitution, preserving non-citizen aid programs.
Date: March 30, 2025
Judge George O’Toole (District of Massachusetts, Clinton appointee)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Blocked transfer of a transgender woman to a men’s prison, indirectly protecting non-citizen detainees’ rights.
Date: April 1, 2025
Supreme Court (Majority Opinion) The majority is removed for less than good behavior.
Order: Upheld lower court order
Details: Upheld a district court order requiring Trump to pay out nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance funds, rejecting administration’s attempt to freeze funds.
Date: April 2, 2025
Supreme Court (Majority Opinion) The majority is removed for less than good behavior.
Order: Overturned lower court order with limitations
Details: Overturned Boasberg’s March 15 TRO blocking AEA deportations but added that detainees must receive notice within a reasonable time to seek habeas relief before removal. Case remanded to the district of detention.
Date: April 7, 2025
Judge Xinis (District of Maryland)
Order: Order for daily updates
Details: Required daily updates on efforts to return Garcia, criticizing administration inaction.
Date: April 11, 2025
Judge Xinis (District of Maryland)
Order: Order for testimony
Details: Required Trump officials to testify about efforts to return Garcia, escalating an inquiry into potential defiance. Upheld by Supreme Court, with instructions to consider deference to foreign affairs.
Date: April 16, 2025
Judge Boasberg (District of Columbia)
Order: Probable cause for criminal contempt
Details: Found “probable cause” to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for “willful disregard” of the March 15 TRO, as deportation flights to El Salvador continued. Demanded information by April 23, 2025.
Date: April 16, 2025
Judge Murphy (District of Massachusetts)
Order: Preliminary injunction
Details: Barred rapid deportations to third countries (e.g., El Salvador, Libya) without allowing migrants to demonstrate fear of persecution or torture.
Date: April 18, 2025
Supreme Court (Majority Opinion) All but Judges Thomas and Alito are removed for less than good behavior.
Order: Temporarily blocked deportations
Details: Temporarily blocked deportations of a group of Venezuelan migrants in Texas under the AEA, preserving due process pending further review.
Date: April 19, 2025
(*** Thomas and Alito dissented. Consider removing the other Supreme Court Judges for bad behavior.)
AI – Dissenting Justices
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from this order, indicating their disagreement with the court’s decision to block the deportations temporarily. Justice Alito later released a dissent criticizing the court’s haste, joined by Justice Thomas, but this does not clarify the majority composition.
Supreme Court (Majority Opinion) The majority is removed for not overturning Judge Alsup’s illegal order.
Order: Paused lower court order
Details: Paused Alsup’s March 13 injunction reinstating 16,000 probationary employees, ruling nonprofit plaintiffs lacked standing.
Date: April 20, 2025
Supreme Court (Majority Opinion) The majority shall be reviewed by Congress to examine less than good behavior.
Order: Allowed policy enforcement
Details: Allowed Trump to enforce a transgender troop ban, overturning lower court blocks.
Date: May 6, 2025
Judge Beryl A. Howell (District of Columbia, Obama appointee)
Order: Struck down executive order
Details: Invalidated an order suspending security clearances for Perkins Coie, ruling it was “retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.”
Date: May 1, 2025
Judge Whitehead (Western District of Washington)
Order: Order to admit approximately 12,000 refugees
Details: Enforced a Ninth Circuit ruling to admit ~12,000 pre-approved refugees with travel plans before January 20, 2025, ordering processing within seven days.
Date: May 5, 2025
Judge Howell (District of Columbia)
Order: Blocked executive order
Details: Blocked Trump’s effort to oust a National Labor Relations Board member, citing the board’s independence.
Date: May 7, 2025
Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California, Clinton appointee)
Order: Ruling issued
Details: Ruled Trump’s attempts to restructure the federal government without congressional authorization violated the Constitution.
Date: May 7, 2025
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (District of Columbia, Reagan appointee)
Order: Halted parts of executive order
Details: Blocked provisions of an order requiring proof-of-citizenship for voting, upholding electoral integrity.
Date: May 8, 2025
Judge John McConnell (District of Rhode Island, Obama appointee)
Order: Issued a Preliminary Injunction
Details: Halted the Trump administration’s plan to shutter three federal agencies (IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS), ruling the closures exceeded executive authority.
Date: May 8, 2025
Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California, Clinton appointee)
Order: Issued a Temporary Restraining Order
Details: Blocked President Trump’s Executive Order 14210, halting mass layoffs and program closures across two dozen federal agencies, citing constitutional violations.
Date: May 9, 2025
*** This list of judges represents a conspiracy to commit a judicial Coup d’Etat, where all of the participants should be investigated individually and collectively on charges of insurrection, overturning the 2024 Election, and other charges as may be brought by the Congress and the President.
ENDORSEMENTS:
BILL STATUS:
COMMENTS: