Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous

Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous

Charlie Kirk’s Death Sparks Martyrdom Narrative Amid Rising Political Violence

Charlie Kirk’s Death Sparks Martyrdom Narrative Amid Rising Political Violence

Donald Trump and the Rise of Political Violence

Donald Trump and the Rise of Political Violence

"Vote Here" sign

Trump Targets Voting Rights and Suppresses Voting

Supreme Court

MAGA Supreme Court Justices Show Their True Colors by Joining Trump’s Attack on the Federal Judiciary

How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?

How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?

U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
By Kristina Becvar,
Kristina Becvar

In her role as co-publisher of The Fulcrum and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, she is a driving force behind collaborative efforts to transform our democracy. Recognizing that no single idea or organization can address our complex challenges in isolation, Kristina excels in blending intuitive leadership with data-driven insights. Her extensive background in operations and change management, coupled with her M.S. in data analytics and research methods, equips her with a powerful skill set. Kristina brings a focused approach to the essential work required for a thriving democratic republic.

See More Writings by author
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins serves as publisher of The Fulcrum. Additionally, Nevins serves as co-founder and Board Chairman of the Bridge Alliance. Nevins brings business acumen, vision and a tireless this-must-and-can-be-done zeal to the burgeoning movement to bridge divides to transform the political process. As a business leader, Nevins excels at building bridges between people and organizations from the right, left and center for civilized conversation and then action. He co-founded the Bridge Alliance because, as he says, “No matter how well managed and how well funded anyone organization is, significant political reform will not happen without an alliance to further collaborative interactions. Together we can and will raise the collective impact of all.” He is a member of the Aspen Institute Society of Fellows, with a focus on the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, he established and continues to work with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program at Penn State University. Nevins graduated with honors in economics from Penn State in 1969 and received an M.B.A. in finance from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971.
See More Writings by author
Mar 19, 2025

In an extraordinary move yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a public statement rebuking President Donald Trump following Trump’s call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.

The controversy began when Judge Boasberg ruled against the Trump administration’s deportation plans under the Alien Enemies Act, citing misuse of the rarely used 1798 law. Trump responded furiously on Truth Social, writing:

“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!”

Trump explicitly demanded Boasberg’s impeachment, further stating:

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

Justice Roberts quickly countered, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements over judicial decisions, and made it clear disagreements should be adjudicated through the appellate review process. Historically, impeachment is reserved for cases of serious misconduct, such as corruption or criminal behavior, not for disagreements over judicial rulings.

This moment is particularly striking because the judiciary typically maintains careful distance from partisan conflicts to preserve impartiality and independence. The last notable rebuke of this nature occurred in 2018, also involving Roberts and Trump. President Donald Trump denounced a judge who ruled against one of his immigration policies as an “Obama judge” and Roberts responded by saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Historically, direct public rebukes from the judiciary toward sitting presidents are extraordinarily uncommon. Even President Obama’s pointed State of the Union criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United ruling in 2010 prompted only a quiet, informal reaction from Justice Alito—not an official rebuke.

Throughout American history, tension between the executive and judicial branches has occasionally surfaced with lasting impressions:

  • Marbury v. Madison (1803): This landmark case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. It arose from a conflict between President Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall over judicial appointments.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt's Court-Packing Plan (1937): Frustrated by the Supreme Court striking down several New Deal programs, President Roosevelt proposed adding more justices to the Court. This plan faced significant opposition and was ultimately abandoned, but it highlighted the tension between the executive branch and the judiciary.
  • United States v. Nixon (1974): During the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Richard Nixon had to release tape recordings of Oval Office conversations. This decision reinforced the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.
  • Bush v. Gore (2000): The Supreme Court's decision effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. This case underscored the judiciary's role in politically charged disputes.

The balance of power, as written into our constitution, is an important foundation for the rule of law in the United States. A Chief Justice rebuking a President, as occurred yesterday, illustrates this delicate balance of power between the branches of government and should be watched carefully by all members of Congress and all citizens who believe in preserving the strength of our democratic republic.

Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Latest news

A globe resting on the very edge of a risen plank.
Democracy

What in the World Is Going On?

Bernie Sanders Still Believes in the Democratic Party. Why?
Democracy

Bernie Sanders Still Believes in the Democratic Party. Why?

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat
Governance & Legislation

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat

An oil drilling platform with a fracking rig.
Governance & Legislation

Trump Says America’s Oil Industry Is Cleaner Than Other Countries’. New Data Shows Massive Emissions From Texas Wells.

Read More

Rule of Law or Rise of Fascism?

"Two Americans can look at the same institution and come to opposite conclusions about the state of our nation. One sees the rule of law still holding; the other sees fascism emerging," writes Debilyn Molineaux.

Getty Images, OsakaWayne Studios

Rule of Law or Rise of Fascism?

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” This famous quote from Benjamin Franklin reminds us of the constant attention required to sustain our system of governance. The founders debated, argued, and ultimately constructed a Constitution for a new nation—the first modern democratic republic in the Western world still dominated by empire-building monarchies. Yet we also inherited a heavy dose of ambition, a drive to attempt self-rule. The Glorious Revolution in England had paved the way for the rule of law, establishing new limits on monarchs and diminishing unchecked aristocratic power. Most importantly, it affirmed that no one—not even a king or queen—was above the law.

And yet, from the very beginning, there has been tension between this ideal and reality. Consider King George III. In the American imagination, he became the tyrant whose “repeated injuries and usurpations” justified rebellion. The Declaration of Independence lists grievance after grievance: refusal to assent to laws, stationing armies among the people, sending “swarms of officers to harass” colonists, and hiring foreign mercenaries to enforce his will. The image is one of unchecked despotism. A closer look at the grievances reveals that most were exaggerated or propaganda. Only two of the twenty-eight were actions that King George III personally directed or had the power to control.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

As part of the Trump Administration's many moves toward tackling the United States’ ‘immigrant crisis,’ the DOJ recently announced a prioritization of denaturalization procedures.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Maybe I Will ‘Go Back to Where I Came From’

As part of the Trump Administration's many moves toward tackling the United States’ ‘immigrant crisis,’ the DOJ recently announced a prioritization of denaturalization procedures, a move that some migrant support organizations recognize as setting a dangerous precedent. But that’s not all, the Trump administration has also requested over $175 billion, which will be divided between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), detention centers, courts, among other things.

It seems that even those of us who have gone through the naturalization process are at risk. No one is truly safe. It doesn’t matter if you are doing things “the right way.” They don’t want us here. It was never about legality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Neighbors Turn to Each Other As ICE Raids Shake Los Angeles’ Immigrant Communities

Vendors sell merchandise in the Santee Alley area of the Fashion District on June 19, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Fear of ICE raids and the recent violent protests occurring nearby have hurt business, keeping shoppers away from from the area known for its cut-rate electronics, inexpensive clothing and large selections of quinceañera dresses.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Neighbors Turn to Each Other As ICE Raids Shake Los Angeles’ Immigrant Communities

When federal immigration enforcement operations swept through Los Angeles earlier this summer, the effects rippled far beyond the undocumented community. Entire neighborhoods saw the slowdown of businesses as the sense of fear began to settle in. Yet, the absence of safety nets has encouraged residents to rely on one another.

Across the city, mutual aid networks, some long-standing and others entirely new, have mobilized to meet urgent needs. From advocacy nonprofits to autonomous street-defense teams to the vendors themselves, the response reveals a pattern: in times of crisis, communities turn inward, pooling resources, skills, and trust to keep each other afloat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Want Immigration Reform—Here's What It Should Look Like
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash

Americans Want Immigration Reform—Here's What It Should Look Like

At a strawberry farm in California's Central Valley, the harvest is beginning to rot. There aren't enough workers to keep up. A few miles away, an eldercare clinic is cutting hours because it can't hire aides fast enough. Meanwhile, the federal government has expanded expedited removal protocols that could target both kinds of sites.

This reflects economic reality, not political preference.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2025