REMINDER: Thomas Jefferson Removed Corrupt Judges for Obstructing his Administration – President Trump Can Too

Thomas Jefferson removed corrupt judges for obstructing his Administration.  President Trump can too.  

Republished from February 11th article

The Judges preventing President Trump from uncovering fraud are preventing the Trump Administration from upholding the law and should be removed immediately.

Corrupt judges like the always on the wrong side of the law, Amy Berman Jackson, are preventing President Trump from performing his duties as President.

Obama appointed activist Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed Benghazi charges against Hillary Clinton and is now blocking Trump’s executive orders

The corruption runs deep in the deep state. pic.twitter.com/i1ol95vnDX

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) February 11, 2025

Another judge mandated as if he had the power that President Trump keep 2,200 workers at USAID.

A judge has temporarily blocked Donald Trump from placing 2,200 workers at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on paid leave, just hours before it was due to happen.

Judge Carl Nichols issued a ‘limited’ temporary restraining order after two unions filed a last-minute lawsuit trying to save the agency. The order will remain in place until Friday at midnight.

The US President has argued that the overseas aid agency is not a valuable use of taxpayer money and wants to dismantle it – with plans to keep just 611 employees and put nearly 10,000 on leave.

These corrupt judges are out of line and must be removed.  Our country is in a crisis.  We are uncovering billions and billions of corruption at entities like USAID and these judges are mandating that the corruption continue.

Any “judges” ruling to continue billions and billions of fraud should absolutely be removed from the bench. 

Thomas Jefferson had a similar situation when he was President 200+ years ago. Here’s how he handled it. 

According to fjc.gov Thomas Jefferson stepped into a Presidency where Federalist judges were put in place to destroy his administration’s initiatives.

While the peaceful exchange of power from one party to another has become a much-praised commonplace in American politics, many Federalists deemed the looming transfer as something approaching a coup. In the Federalists’ view, Democratic-Republican critiques of existing policies were tantamount to disloyalty and sedition rather than the statement of reasonable differences. In their final weeks in power, Federalists attempted to find ways to influence the government to take a course closer to their vision while they were out of power.

The Judiciary Act of 1801, passed on February 13, was arguably the Federalists’ most important attempt to accomplish this goal. This law reordered the federal judiciary in several important ways. Among other innovations, the Act dispensed with the need for Supreme Court justices to “ride circuit,” a process by which justices endured onerous travel to preside over trial courts around the country. Instead, the law created regional circuit courts to be staffed by a new group of circuit judges. Passed late in President Adams’s term, the Act gave him the opportunity to appoint several judges just as he was leaving office.

Jeffersonians cried foul. They argued that the Judiciary Act was a cynical exercise designed to place Federalist sympathizers on the bench with a view to blunting the incoming government’s policies. Though Jefferson would undoubtedly have his own judicial vacancies to fill in time, the large number of new appointments under the 1801 Act might dilute the influence of Jefferson’s appointees. Many Jeffersonians vowed to remove the “midnight judges” from office by repealing the Judiciary Act.

…Approximately a year after coming to power, the Jeffersonians passed legislation repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801. Their replacement Judiciary Act abandoned federal question jurisdiction (thus returning most cases predicated on the Constitution and federal statutes to state courts), restored circuit riding duties for Supreme Court justices, and replaced the circuit courts established by the 1801 Act. Together, these two laws had the effect of removing the midnight judges from office by abolishing their courts. Judges appointed to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, however, retained their commissions.

The repeal of the 1801 Act and the subsequent promulgation of the new Judiciary Act prompted considerable constitutional debate. Many Federalists argued that the repeal of the 1801 Act was unconstitutional because it had the effect of removing Article III judges from offices they held “during good Behaviour.” Some (including Chief Justice Marshall) also believed that the Judiciary Act of 1802 improperly required Supreme Court justices to hold circuit courts without having been appointed to serve on those courts. Nevertheless, in Stuart v. Laird (1803) the Court held that there were “no words in the Constitution to prohibit or restrain” Congress’s power to reform the courts as it had done. (Marshall did not vote in the case because he was involved in earlier proceedings).

Jefferson had the legislature help him but Democrats didn’t even have that in the Obama Administration when they removed an inspector general looking into their corruption.

Obama Set Precedent for Firing Inspector Generals

Besides the above, the most compelling argument President Trump has for firing corrupt judges across the country is because the judges in place are ignoring fraud and ruling for fraudsters.  America wants judges who are honest and prudent and just – not these corrupt judges going against the will of the people and certifying fraud.

The sooner President Trump makes a stand on corrupt judges in the judiciary, the better for the country.