What happens when the president has nearly 1,500 federal judges looking over his shoulder – and able to block his every move?

What happens when the chief justice won’t do anything about it?

The answer to both questions is chaos and a constitutional crisis that threatens not the Executive branch of government so much as the Judicial.

If the U.S. Supreme Court continues to allow rank-and-file trial court judges to rule on and revoke the president’s every decision on deportations, government layoffs, foreign aid and more – no doubt contrary to the Constitution’s intent – then what choice does a chief executive have but to ignore them?

It’s either that or Executive branch paralysis – and given the mess President Trump inherited with illegal immigration, crime, the bloated and hostile bureaucracy and federal spending – inaction is not an option.

In the most absurd instance of judicial overreach, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg Saturday tried to stop planes – mid-flight – that were deporting dangerous Tren de Aragua gang members who came here illegally, and who’ve menaced and murdered innocent Americans.

The Department of Justice argues the judiciary has no role in such deportations, and is seeking Boasberg’s removal from the case – even as he tries to tighten his unlawful and unwise vise on the president’s decision-making.

A historic blunder

That the Supreme Court didn’t immediately intervene to prune back Boasberg’s power lust will likely be seen as a historic blunder, if not a catastrophic one.

The media, Democrats and judiciary would surely blame Trump if this crisis worsens to the point that judges’ rulings must be ignored. But make no mistake: It will be the complete doing of Chief Justice John Roberts.

“This is all Chief Justice Roberts’ fault,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, posted on X.

“John Roberts has the worst political instincts of any human being ever. It’s remarkable,” adds Kurt Schlichter, a senior columnist for Townhall.com.

Certainly, handed the question of what to do with the frightening precedent of a judge clearly exceeding his constitutional authority to hamstring a president in the carrying out of his constitutional duties, Roberts could have, and should have, asked himself one question: Is Trump right?

Further, isn’t it just possible, even likely, that Boasberg isn’t the only completely-off-the-plantation judge out there? Isn’t it possible, even likely, that – if he cared to look at all – Roberts is presiding over a judiciary that could use some housecleaning?

Judges aren’t perfect, and therefore their jobs, their judgment and their integrity cannot be allowed to be treated as sacrosanct.

Yet, what is Roberts’ reaction to President Trump’s valid suggestion of impeachment for a judge with so little judgment and such big ambitions as Boasberg? He rebukes the president – as if there’s anything at this point that Roberts can tell Trump about unjust impeachments.

What a truly thoughtful chief justice would’ve done, when handed this dilemma, would be to look his own judiciary in the mirror – and order the immediate review of every federal judge for both performance and conflict-of-interest issues.

Indeed, Mr. Trump, having witnessed both problems personally as the target of political lawfare last year – in which a judge and prosecutor, or two or three, were waist deep in clear conflicts of interest – might just have something to say about judicial error that the chief justice might learn from.

Is the judiciary beyond reproach?

The Executive branch is currently doing some badly needed introspection and restructuring; is the judiciary so superhuman that it requires no reforms? Ever?

The rest of us certainly don’t think so – and knowledgeable and keen observers across the nation are letting it be known that Justice Roberts is playing with fire – and his own legacy and the future of the judiciary itself – by not reining in the overreaching judges among his fold.

“An activist judge ordering planes to turn around during a national-security operation is not a ‘judicial decision,’” Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, posted on X. “That is a highly illegal and extremely dangerous sabotage of the presidency, which is an impeachable offense.”

“Roberts does not appreciate how close to the ledge he is dancing right now,” writes Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of The Federalist. “Once a president is forced by judicial insurrectionists to ignore their diktats and finally realizes the only power they ever had was a common belief they were legitimate, it’s over.

“And let me tell you: the fuel gauge needle on that legitimacy tank is starting to point at E due to the ongoing insanity of unelected tyrants in robes. Once that tank is dry, it’s over, because no president or Congress would ever again have any reason to defer to the whims of a cabal viewed as lawless and illegitimate by the people of this country.”

Writes the typically erudite former House Speaker Newt Gingrich:

“If Chief Justice Roberts wants to minimize attacks on out of control appointed leftwing district court judges abusing their role and claiming to be able to overrule the elected President of the United States on management details that are clearly within his role as defined by the Constitution and the Federalist Papers then he should intervene and overrule these absurd power grabs.

“The Chief Justice can defend the Court by overruling bad judges before the Executive and Legislative Branches start acting against them. The burden is on the Chief Justice not the President.”

If Roberts fails to rein in these judges and safeguard the credibility of the judiciary, then Davis may be right:

“The Chief Justice will have to resign. He’s destroying the federal judiciary’s legitimacy.”