Judges seem to be waking up.
A Trump-appointed judge issued her second temporary restraining order blocking Trump and Miller’s plan to send California National Guard troops to the “war zones” of Portland, Oregon. Earlier today, Illinois and Chicago sued the Trump Administration for deploying the National Guard to terrorize its residents and tear gas children and cops.
Even the corrupt Supreme Court, populated by right-wing Reeks, declined to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal to overturn her conviction. Apparently, the conservative majority feels helping Epstein’s right-hand woman escape accountability is a step too far. Nonetheless, Trump and Stephen Miller persist. If you think they’ll abide by restraints and judicial rulings, I have a memecoin to sell you for $5 billion.
Unfortunately, violence and stochastic terror remain the weapons of choice for MAGA. For the past 10 years, Trump’s supporters have engaged in threats and assaults against the media, judges, law enforcement, teachers, poll workers, and Democrats. In South Carolina, Judge Goodstein, who recently ruled against the Trump Administration, almost lost her family when a massive fire engulfed her home. Authorities are now investigating, but the timing is interesting considering the Judge has received death threats for the past month. In September, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon called her out directly on Twitter, and Stephen Miller and Elon Musk used the hellsite to criticize judges over the weekend.
Danielle and I break it down in today’s episode of Democracy-ish.
Here’s Danielle’s write-up at The Dam Digest.
The Rogue Regime’s Assault on the Judiciary and the Disturbing Rise of Political Violence
The opening months of the Trump administration second term are far from “chill and calm.” Instead, they are marked by a rapid escalation of conflict between the executive branch and the judiciary, underscored by an alarming pattern of targeted political violence. The narrative that everything is “totally okay” quickly crumbles under the weight of relentless legal maneuvering and the very real danger faced by judges who dare to stand against the administration’s overreach.
Judicial Pushback Against Federal Overreach in Portland
The judiciary delivered an early and significant rebuke to the Trump administration’s attempt to use federalized military force for domestic political purposes. A federal judge in Oregon, U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut, issued a temporary restraining order to block the administration from deploying up to 300 members of the California National Guard to the streets of Portland, Oregon. This move came swiftly after the same judge—a Trump appointee, a fact that amplified the political shock—had blocked the use of Oregon’s own National Guard.
The administration, seemingly undeterred by the initial ruling, attempted to circumvent the judge’s order by simply pulling troops from another state. Judge Immergut’s subsequent late Sunday night ruling, however, was decisive, blocking the deployment of the National Guard from California or any other state. This back-to-back legal defiance signaled a growing, bipartisan resistance within the courts, infuriating the administration’s legal team who were reportedly scolded for what the judge perceived as a deliberate attempt to disobey her orders. California Governor Gavin Newsom characterized the administration’s actions as a “breathtaking abuse of law and power,” accusing them of “unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself.”
The Shadow of Stochastic Terrorism
The legal battle over the National Guard deployments coincided with a separate, far more sinister development: an apparent act of stochastic terrorism targeting a judge who had recently ruled against a Trump administration initiative.
The beach home of South Carolina Judge Diane Goodstein—also a Republican-appointed judge—was destroyed by a house fire over a weekend. Her husband, a former senator, and relatives were inside and narrowly escaped. This incident occurred weeks after Judge Goodstein had temporarily blocked the state’s election commission from releasing sensitive voter files (including Social Security and driver’s license numbers) to the Department of Justice, a request made under a Trump executive order. The decision had been publicly criticized by prominent MAGA-aligned figures, including Harmeet Dhillon. Disturbingly, sources reported that Judge Goodstein had received death threats in the weeks leading up to the fire.
This suspected arson serves as a terrifying “warning shot” to the judiciary. It highlights a dangerous correlation between the heated, anti-judge rhetoric espoused by key figures like Stephen Miller and conservative influencers, and real-world violence. Miller, a close advisor to the administration, had taken to social media to accuse the opposition of being a “large and growing movement of left wing terrorism,” which he claimed was “shielded by far left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorney generals.” He concluded that the “only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.” This rhetoric mirrors historical fascist language, such as the scapegoating following the 1933 Reichstag fire, which Hitler used to suspend civil liberties and solidify dictatorial power.
The Judiciary in Fear: A Threat to the Rule of Law
The attack on Judge Goodstein’s home has triggered new alarms over judicial security across the ideological spectrum. Supreme Court justices have publicly warned of escalating hostility toward the courts. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has repeatedly addressed the threats, stated, “A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear. The rule of law depends on judges being able to do their jobs without intimidation or harm.“
This climate of fear, critics argue, is manufactured from the top-down. The administration has a documented history of attacking opponents—journalists, law enforcement, poll workers, and judges—by verbally mocking and ridiculing them, an act of stochastic terrorism that leads to real-world harm. The attacks against judges—including the death of a judge’s son and the firebombing of a governor’s residence—reveal that the threats are moving beyond traditional political opposition and into outright political violence aimed at dismantling the independent application of law.
The judicial resistance, evidenced by Judge Immergut’s definitive action, is seen as a necessary effort to slow down the machine of executive overreach. However, the pervasive violence and the administration’s outright disregard for court orders—treating the rule of law as a mere “suggestion”—force a stark realization: when legal determinations are met with contempt and terroristic threats, the very foundation of the democratic system is at risk. The question remains whether this growing, bipartisan judicial defiance can withstand an administration increasingly willing to use state power—and the threat of unchecked violence—to achieve its fascist aims.
Thank you God, Summer Koester, Shambhavi Sarasvati, Jeeni Criscenzo, Pamela, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.
