The common wisdom that federal judges are competent, nonpartisan, and seek justice is a crock of bullshit. Federal judges are more likely to be vain, narcissistic, obstinate, and hyper-partisan, ruling their fiefdom with an iron hand and no fear from higher courts.

Overlooking the safety and security of American citizens, Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg responded to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, demanding that deportations of ultraviolent illegal aliens gang members to their native country.be halted. When lawyers informed him there were immigrants already en route to El Salvador and Honduras, Boasberg verbally ordered the planes be turned around but did not include the directive in his written order.

If the name Boasberg is familiar, remember he became a focal point in 2020 when he was tasked with overseeing investigations into the FBI’s use of FISA warrants, especially related to the surveillance of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Boasberg, as the presiding judge of the FISA Court, was responsible for reviewing these warrants, which were later found to be flawed due to false information and omissions in the FBI’s applications.

And Boasberg was the judge who sentenced FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, the Trump-Russia hoax co-conspirator who pleaded guilty to improperly altering a CIA email to help obtain FISA surveillance against Carter Page, to just one year of probation and no prison time.

Tren de Aragua: A Clear and Present Danger to America 

The violent gang known as Tren de Aragua is one of the most notorious criminal organizations in Venezuela, spreading its influence not only across the country but into neighboring nations as well. Originating from the streets of Aragua State, the gang operates with extreme brutality, engaging in various illegal activities, including extortion, kidnapping, human trafficking, and drug smuggling. Tren de Aragua is infamous for its ruthless tactics, using violence and fear to dominate territories and maintain control over local populations. Their reach extends far beyond Venezuela, as they have infiltrated countries like Colombia, Chile, and Brazil, where they continue to exploit vulnerable communities. The gang’s structure is highly organized, with members showing a level of coordination and strategic thinking that allows them to evade law enforcement and grow their criminal empire. And they are here, in America, in increasing numbers.

The Myth of the Unbiased Federal Judge: A Closer Look at the Truth Under the Robes

• The Illusion of Impartiality: At the heart of the myth of the “competent, nonpartisan, and just” federal judge is the notion that the judicial system operates like a well-oiled machine of objectivity. This idea paints a picture of judges as unemotional and logical, above politics and public opinion. The truth? Federal judges are appointed for life and wield significant power, often ruling on cases affecting millions. It’s no wonder some become so invested in their authority and beliefs.

In reality, many federal judges bring their personal biases—sometimes consciously, sometimes not—into the courtroom. Their political ideologies, past experiences, and personal beliefs shape their decisions like any other humans. This is especially true regarding the most controversial cases, where the stakes are high, and the public attention is even higher. When it feels like your career is on the line, it’s hard to resist the temptation to use the law as a tool to cement your personal beliefs.

• The Rise of Judicial Narcissism: Federal judges don’t just have the luxury of interpreting laws—they also have the authority to shape the law as they see fit. Some judges relish this power, often ruling with a sense of superiority as if they’re the final word in all legal matters. This sense of inflated self-worth is too common in the judiciary, where an insular culture breeds arrogance.

Think about it: when was the last time a federal judge faced any real accountability for their rulings? High-profile decisions are often hard to challenge or overturn, and the power imbalance between judges and litigants is enormous. The judicial system operates in a vacuum, often removed from the lived realities of the people it is meant to serve.

This breeds a kind of narcissism among judges, who see themselves as infallible arbiters of justice and above reproach. It’s not just about ruling on the facts of a case anymore; it’s about asserting dominance over their domain.

• Obstinance and the Iron Fist of Judicial Power: One of the most disturbing aspects of the federal judiciary is the obstinance some judges display regarding their decisions. Once a judge makes up their mind, it can be nearly impossible to change it—especially when they feel their decision is part of their legacy. Appeals and higher courts often seem like mere formalities, and even when they reverse a decision, the damage is frequently already done.

Some federal judges’ arrogance leads them to believe that their rulings are beyond reproach, leading to delays, unjust decisions, and a refusal to reconsider—even when new evidence or legal arguments arise. This resistance to change can make the judiciary feel like a fortress: once you’re in, the only way out is through the slow grind of bureaucracy.

• A Judicial Legacy of Hyper-Partisanship: Perhaps one of the most glaring contradictions in the myth of the impartial federal judge is the pervasive influence of partisanship. Judges, particularly in recent decades, have been increasingly appointed based on their political alignment rather than their qualifications. The result is a deeply divided judiciary, where many judges have clear political affiliations and leanings that shape their rulings.

It is impossible to ignore the growing trend of hyper-partisanship, especially when high-profile appointments are often made to tip the ideological balance of the courts. The politicization of the judiciary doesn’t stop when judges take their seats—it carries over into their rulings, creating a judicial system that increasingly reflects the polarization of the American public.

Attorney General Pam Bondi Responds to Boasberg’s Outrageous Order…

Bottom line…

The idea that federal judges are impartial, competent, and universally just is bullshit. While some judges strive to act fairly and honorably, many are more concerned with their own power, legacy, and political agenda than with impartial justice. The system is broken, and it’s high time we recognize its flaws.

For too long, federal judges have been allowed to rule with impunity, their decisions going unchallenged or unreviewed, leaving the public to grapple with the consequences. If we are to trust the judicial system to serve justice, we must demand greater accountability, transparency, and reform. The myth of the unbiased, all-knowing judge needs to be shattered—and replaced with a system that prioritizes fairness over ego and political interest.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve