In times of democratic strain, clarity must come not only from scholars and journalists but also from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution with impartiality and courage.
This first piece in a series in The Fulcrum, “Judges on Democracy,” invites retired federal judges to speak directly to the American public about the foundational principles of our legal system: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the indispensable role of an independent judiciary to our democratic republic.
These voices are not partisan. They are principled. Having served on the bench with fidelity to law over politics, these jurists now step forward—not to advocate for any party or agenda but to illuminate the constitutional architecture that protects liberty and equality for all.
Their reflections are rooted in experience, not ideology. Their warnings are grounded in precedent.
At a time when threats to judicial independence are growing more frequent and more brazen, The Fulcrum offers this series as a civic resource and a moral compass. We believe that understanding how our courts function and why their integrity matters is essential to preserving the democratic experiment our founders envisioned.
We begin with Judge Paul R. Michel, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1988 until his retirement in 2010. His words are a reminder that the judiciary is not a tool of power; it is a bulwark against its abuse.
Why did the framers enshrine an independent judiciary—and how does that safeguard our democracy today?
“From studying the history of republics over the millennia, the Founders discerned a tendency for autocrats to take control, destroying democracy and ending these republics. They had observed first-hand and suffered first-hand the lawless predations of King George and his agents. Determined to avoid such a calamity for our new democratic republic, they crafted a novel system of Checks and Balances among three independent and coequal branches of the government. This was intended to limit the power of each branch, preventing a single branch from having more power. Specifically, in carrying out its Constitutional duty to interpret the laws, the judiciary was to restrain the Executive if it engaged in lawless behaviors. Today, their insight is of paramount importance as the best way to block unlawful actions of the Executive. Thereby protecting the citizenry and our democracy. That is the very meaning of the Rule of Law. Legal rules, not Executive edicts, control.”
Why are retired judges speaking out now—what compels you to break tradition and raise your voice?
“In recent years and particularly this year, the country has seen hundreds of aggressive and often plainly unlawful actions by the Executive. The spike in such assaults on democratic and lawful governance is now so great as to throw into question whether America is still under the Rule of Law as opposed to the rule of a king. The threat today is far greater than at any prior period of my lifetime. I could not stand silent.”
Why is using impeachment to challenge judicial decisions a threat to constitutional balance?
“Impeachment of judges has been extremely rare over the 245 years of our country’s existence. In accordance with the clear command of the U.S. Constitution, it has been reserved for cases of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ Today, for the first time ever, it is being threatened against judges for simply ruling in accordance with law in decisions the Administration disfavors. This trend poses a grave danger of affecting judicial decision-making and the very credibility of courts and acceptance of their decisions, the foundation of the Rule of Law and democratic governance. At stake is whether the judiciary can continue to serve as a ‘check and balance’ against executive (or congressional) overreach.”
What do you wish more Americans understood about the role of judges in preserving liberty and equality?
“The role of the judiciary is to apply the law as set forth in the Constitution and the acts of Congress over the many decades, not to advance the present ‘agenda’ of any president. This ensures citizens that the nation’s laws will be interpreted fairly and consistently, a bedrock of our system of governance.”
What moment from your time on the bench best captures the weight—or wonder—of serving justice?
“More than occasionally, I had to rule contrary to my firm personal views because of owing allegiance to settled law. My personal views were not to affect my decision. Nor were the views of any political party, including the one of the president that nominated me. In my experience, colleagues on the bench, once appointed, likewise shed all personal views and prior political affiliations to become faithful servants of the law.”
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."