‘Grow a Pair!’ Fox’s Mark Levin Drops Scorched Earth Attack On John Roberts Defending Federal Judges

Fox News host Mark Levin raged at Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday over Roberts arguing it’s not “appropriate” for the president to call to impeach a federal judge whose rulings he doesn’t like.

President Donald Trump called this week for the impeachment of Federal Judge James Boasberg, who temporarily paused Trump’s deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump for calling to remove the judge, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Fox anchor Martha MacCallum introduced the segment, saying, “600 and some judges at this level, you know, in terms of the Supreme Court, if it’s as egregious as you say, what would you expect to hear from them? We know yesterday, Justice Roberts weighed in, really on behalf of the judge’s right to say this, and the process is going to play out.”

“There’s a hearing on March 21st. What do you think the Supreme Court should do, if anything?” MacCallum asked, referring to a federal judge temporarily pausing Trump deportations to super max prisons in El Salvador.

“I would say that John Roberts, who I knew before he was a judge, when we both worked in the Reagan administration, it’s time to grow a pair, judge,” began Levin, adding:

Think about Justice Rehnquist. What would Justice Rehnquist, the Chief Justice, have done when those four originalists two weeks ago when this case involving another rogue Democrat judge ordered the President of the United States to spend money on foreign activities. What would Rehnquist have done? Would he have joined the four or would he have joined the radical three?

This is an issue of separation of powers and if it’s not resolved, you basically in the form of your question have answered it. How the hell are we going to have 680 individual, unelected federal judges, they’re federal district judges, not federal national judges, all sitting there behind their desks with two or three clerks saying, you know, I don’t like this idea– Trump’s sending this. I don’t like this idea of banning transgender. I don’t like this idea. This is exactly what Locke and Montesquieu and Jefferson, and Madison warned.

When you have a combination of branches rather than separation of branches, and Scalia did too, you have a tyranny. And I don’t care about what John Roberts pronounces from the bench. Do your job, Chief Justice of the United States. Don’t get into the political fight. Fix it!

Because if you don’t fix it, we’re going to lose our constitutional construct or Congress is going to have to figure out some way to fix it. One other thing. The idea, and I’ve even heard it on my beloved network from some of these former whatevers, that we shouldn’t raise our voice. That’s our job. This government exists for we, the people. It doesn’t exist for John Roberts, the judges, Congress, or anybody else. This whole thing was set up for us, to protect us. When these judges are conducting themselves this way, when they’re interfering with an election, when they’re grabbing, seizing power in front of our eyes, we’re all smart.

We see it from the executive branch, a president of the United States. He’s elected nationally. They’re created by Congress. They’re not even in the Constitution. They’re using a power judicial review that’s not even in the Constitution that was created by the Supreme Court in 1803. They should at least have some level of deference to the President of the United States.

And notice one other thing. Compare the number of restraining orders, injunctions, and reversals that Donald Trump has had with the last 10 presidents of the United States. It is grotesque!

“Yeah, it’s very interesting because, you know, last time around it was all Department of Justice. Now you’ve got Pam Bondi there, and they’re trying– she’s trying to crack down on weaponization. So now you sort of see this other area like the whack-a-mole popping up. So now it’s going to be across the country and judges and injunctions coming from these judges,” MacCallum replied, adding:

But I think it’s going to be interesting to see if these tests hold up. And it looks like at this point the White House is in, you know, it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission mode. And we heard today they’re going to keep sending people that they think are members of gangs and dangerous to the United States back where they came from.

“Just one quick thing. Yeah, go ahead. The White House is defending the executive branch, separation of powers, and the Constitution from rogue, radical, left-wing, Democrat lawyers in black robes. That’s what the White House is doing. They’re not picking a fight. They’re responding to those who are trying to seize their power. That’s what they’re doing,” Levin said.

“Yep, and there’s action every single day. So there’s a lot more coming at them than we’ve seen in the past because he’s working hard to get a lot done very quickly. It’s gonna be very interesting to watch this play out. Mark Levin, always good to see you, Mark,” concluded MacCallum.

Watch the clip above via Fox News.