Top 20 Democrat Judges Gone Wild

What happens when you appoint Marxists, Communists and Democrats - but I repeat myself

The United States is founded on separation of powers and constitutional restraints, but we now face a new threat: organized judicial activism that rips the fabric our Founders created. Today, to defy the evil Orange Man, judges not only misinterpret the law—they create it on the fly, inserting themselves into policy decisions (looking at you, Boasberg) properly reserved for the elected branches of government. Their rulings reflect not judicial analysis but hard-line Marxist-Socialist activism.

Consider the following list:

1. Judge Carter's Criminal Conspiracy Finding (2022)

Clinton-appointed Judge David Carter declared Trump "more likely than not" engaged in criminal conspiracy regarding January 6, ordering the release of 101 Eastman emails by invoking the rare "crime-fraud exception" to attorney-client privilege. The judge who crossed the Rubicon didn't even need to get his toga wet.

2. Robart's Travel Ban Blockade (2017)

Bush appointee James Robart halted Trump's travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries, prompting Trump to label him a "so-called judge" in a public rebuke. When a president calls you a "so-called judge," do you get a so-called paycheck?

3. Tigar's Asylum Entry Point Ruling (2018)

Obama appointee Jon Tigar of the Ninth Circuit ruled asylum seekers could apply regardless of how they entered the US, effectively nullifying Trump's policy restricting claims to official ports of entry. Nothing says "welcome to America" like a judicial opinion written on Ninth Circuit letterhead.

4. Chutkan's Gag Order Warning (2023)

Obama appointee Tanya Chutkan presided over Trump's federal election interference case, warning against "inflammatory statements" in a move critics viewed as potentially restricting First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech meets judicial discretion in America's most awkward blind date.

5. Giles Halts Virginia Voter Roll Purge (2024)

Biden appointee Patricia Tolliver Giles ordered Virginia to restore 1,600+ potential non-citizens to voter rolls, blocking the state's purge efforts to Trump's vocal displeasure. In Virginia, your voter registration apparently comes with nine lives.

6. Rhode Island Grant Money Standoff (2025)

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered Trump to release frozen federal grant money, issuing a scathing rebuke that questioned the administration's compliance with judicial authority. When judges and presidents fight over money, the Constitution gets all the paper cuts.

7. Ninth Circuit Blocks DACA Deportations (2018)

The traditionally liberal Ninth Circuit prevented Trump from ending DACA protections, prompting accusations of judicial activism and overriding executive immigration authority. The Ninth Circuit: where presidential orders go to die.

8. Hawaii Judge Halts Revised Travel Ban (2017)

A Hawaii federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against Trump's second travel ban attempt despite minimal direct impact on the state itself. Judicial reach so long it could grab a coconut from Honolulu to Washington.

9. Boasberg's Mid-Air Deportation Reversal (2025)

Obama appointee James Boasberg ordered deportation planes to return mid-flight, citing improper application of the Alien Enemies Act and igniting fierce debate about judicial limits.

Turns out "final boarding call" isn't always so final.

10. Boasberg's FISA Court Oversights (2014-2021)

During his FISA Court tenure, Judge Boasberg presided over surveillance approvals later found to contain significant inaccuracies in the Carter Page case, raising Fourth Amendment concerns. Later, Boasberg let criminal actors like Kevin Clinesmith slide.

11. Carter's Attorney-Client Privilege Exception (2022)

Judge Carter pierced attorney-client privilege between Trump and John Eastman by applying the crime-fraud exception, a rare judicial move that alarmed legal observers.

Attorney-client privilege: terms and conditions may apply when Communists get elected.

12. Chutkan's Speech Limitations (2023)

Judge Chutkan warned Trump against making "inflammatory statements" in his election case, sparking debate about judicial restrictions on political speech. First Amendment rights are apparently available in regular and judicial-diet versions.

13. Tigar Overrides Immigration Restrictions (2018)

Judge Tigar's ruling against Trump's immigration policy was criticized as judicial overreach into executive national security prerogatives reserved by the Constitution. In the separation of powers tug-of-war, the rope is looking rather frayed.

14. Giles' Virginia Voter Registration Order (2024)

Judge Giles' decision to reregister purged voters drew sharp criticism from Trump and Governor Youngkin as judicial interference in state election administration. Democracy: where your right to vote may depend on which judge is assigned to the case.

15. Boasberg's Clinesmith Probation Decision (2021)

Judge Boasberg sentenced FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith to probation rather than prison for falsifying evidence in the Trump-Russia investigation, fueling claims of a two-tiered justice system. For some, falsifying federal evidence carries roughly the same penalty as an overdue library book.

16. Ninth Circuit's Birthright Citizenship Ruling (2025)

The Ninth Circuit blocked Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship, with critics claiming the judges misinterpreted the 14th Amendment's text and intent.

Constitutional originalism: available in select judicial districts only.

17. Rhode Island's Funding Mandate (2025)

A Rhode Island judge ordered the Trump administration to release frozen funds, raising questions about judicial authority over executive spending discretion. The power of the purse now comes with judicial accessorizing.

18. Hawaii Judge's Nationwide Injunction (2017)

A Hawaii federal judge's nationwide injunction against Trump's revised travel ban raised questions about geographical limits of district court authority. When a single district judge can block presidential policy nationwide, federalism gets very complicated.

19. Boasberg's January 6 Grand Jury Management (2023)

Chief Judge Boasberg oversaw January 6 grand jury proceedings amid allegations of bias and procedural irregularities that potentially compromised due process. Grand juries: the judicial equivalent of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."

20. Carter's Democracy Warning (2022)

Judge Carter claimed Trump's January 6 actions "would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power," prompting concerns about judicial political commentary. When judges become prophets, the law books start looking suspiciously like crystal balls.

---

Congress and the Executive Branch retain constitutional authority to address this crisis. Article III, Section 2 explicitly grants Congress power to regulate judicial jurisdiction. Congress should exercise this authority by limiting nationwide injunctions, restricting forum shopping, and establishing clear jurisdictional boundaries for policy challenges.

The Appropriations Clause provides Congress leverage to defund unconstitutional judicial mandates. It could start by disbanding the DC Court, which is a hotbed of progressives, Marxists, and worse.

The Executive Branch can assert constitutional prerogatives through Office of Legal Counsel opinions clarifying separation of powers boundaries, while the appointment process must prioritize judges committed to textualist and originalist jurisprudence rather than results-oriented activism.

My personal opinion? Those who cannot honestly take the oath of office - like self-proclaimed “progressives” - should be banned from candidacy in the United States. Their tenets are at odds with the U.S. Constitution.

But they are welcome to run for office in North Korea, where their policies already rule supreme.