At The Federalist: Democrat judges openly proclaim their hostility to Trump and their determination to protect the country from the president that voters elected making the policy choices he told them he would make.
Federal judge James Boasberg advised Chief Justice John Roberts and some two dozen other judges that his D.C. colleagues were "concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis," according to a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist. That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges' clear disregard for the presumption of regularity -- a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties.
During the week of March 11, 2025, members of the Judicial Conference met in Washington, D.C., for the first of its two regular meetings. As the U.S. Court's webpage explains, "[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policymaking body for the federal courts."
The Judicial Conference consists of Chief Justice Roberts, who presides over the body, as well as the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and one district judge from each regional circuit, making for a group of approximately thirty judges. While the Judicial Conference mainstay is considering "administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system," and "mak[ing] recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch," a side conversation at the group's most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail -- the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration.
In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March meeting, including a "working breakfast" at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, "District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues' concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
...
Judge Boasberg's comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges' "concern" also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold -- one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C.
And what is both troubling and ironic is that only a few days later, Judge Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law. Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg would later find "the Trump Administration committed criminal contempt of court" by failing to turn the planes around or fly the gang members back to the U.S., even though the court's written (and unlawful) injunction ordered neither.
Could it possibly be? Could we be living in the Bad Timeline in which partisan, tyrannical judges seek to overturn the mandate of the voters? Could the Time Witches be right?
Yes, the Time Witches be right.
That's exactly what's happened, reports Fox News.
EXCLUSIVE: An environmental advocacy group accused of trying to manipulate judges organized a years-long, nationwide online forum with jurists to promote favorable info and litigation updates regarding climate issues -- until the email-styled group chat was abruptly made private, Fox News Digital found.
The Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) was founded in 2018 by a left-wing environmental nonprofit, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and pitches itself as a "first-of-its-kind effort" that "provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law."
But critics, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, say CJP is funded by China and left-wing activists for one purpose.
"They fund CJP to train judges," Cruz said during a June hearing. "So, quote, unquote, train in climate science and make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics. Then, these left-wing bankrollers turn around and fund the climate litigators who will bring these bogus cases before those same judges that they've just indoctrinated.
"This is like paying the players to play and paying the umpire to call the shots the way you want."
The group, however, says it provides "neutral, objective information to the judiciary about the science of climate change as it is understood by the expert scientific community and relevant to current and future litigation."
This article runs with a picture. The caption reads:
Protester holds sign that reads, "There is no planet B."
FALSE. There are at least two timelines we're aware of, thanks to the work of dedicated palm-reading nurses who get "drops" from "Spirit."
One of the efforts CJP launched included rolling out an email-styled listserv by which leaders from the Climate Judiciary Project could message directly with judges, documents obtained by Fox News Digital show. The listserv was launched in September 2022 and maintained until May 2024, according to the documents. A portal website page for the forum was previously publicly available, with an archived link saved in July 2024 showing there were 29 members in the group.
...
A link to the forum now leads to an error warning, stating, "Sorry, but that group does not exist."
Fox News Digital obtained the archived chat history of the forum, which detailed numerous messages between at least five judges and CJP employees trading links on climate studies, congratulating one another on hosting recent environmental events, sharing updates on recent climate cases that were remanded to state courts, and encouraging each other to participate in other CJP meet-ups.
One message posted by Delaware Judge Travis Laster, vice chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, features a YouTube video of a 2022 climate presentation delivered by a Delaware official and a Columbia University professor that focused on the onslaught of climate lawsuits since the mid-2000s. It also included claims that such lawsuits could one day bankrupt the fuel industry.
Laster shared the video in the group with a disclaimer to others: "Because the link is of a judicial event that is otherwise not public, please do not forward or use without checking with me. I suspect that goes without saying, but the powers that be will be happier that I said it."
A handful of other judges responded to Laster's video and message, praising it as "great work."
...
Judges quietly working behind the scenes with climate and environmental activists have drawn criticism from conservative lawmakers in recent years as climate-focused suits increased, including those who have accused CJP of manipulating the justice system.
Cruz, for example, has been at the forefront of condemning CJP for joining forces with the National Judicial College. Cruz argued in a 2024 opinion piece that he is "concerned that this collaboration means court staff are helping far-left climate activists lobby and direct judges behind closed doors."