Jess Bravin

So therefore, we wouldn't have to follow it anyway. But also, we didn't disobey his illegal order. I mean, that's essentially what they're saying. The judge has asked the government to clarify exactly what it did when, and the government is resisting saying that's national security information that they don't have to disclose to the judge.

So therefore, we wouldn't have to follow it anyway. But also, we didn't disobey his illegal order. I mean, that's essentially what they're saying. The judge has asked the government to clarify exactly what it did when, and the government is resisting saying that's national security information that they don't have to disclose to the judge.

So therefore, we wouldn't have to follow it anyway. But also, we didn't disobey his illegal order. I mean, that's essentially what they're saying. The judge has asked the government to clarify exactly what it did when, and the government is resisting saying that's national security information that they don't have to disclose to the judge.

The judge says he was, you know, he was on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He was, you know, he has a security clearance. He's frustrated. And so we don't know where that's going to end up.

The judge says he was, you know, he was on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He was, you know, he has a security clearance. He's frustrated. And so we don't know where that's going to end up.

The judge says he was, you know, he was on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He was, you know, he has a security clearance. He's frustrated. And so we don't know where that's going to end up.

Well, he's trying to say that this is going to DEFCON 1 over the kind of legal dispute that is really quite routine. You know, judges issue preliminary orders in cases all the time. Those often do not reflect the final disposition of a case. Often the very same judge, when he gets into further deliberation and reviews all the arguments, will reach a different decision.

Well, he's trying to say that this is going to DEFCON 1 over the kind of legal dispute that is really quite routine. You know, judges issue preliminary orders in cases all the time. Those often do not reflect the final disposition of a case. Often the very same judge, when he gets into further deliberation and reviews all the arguments, will reach a different decision.

Well, he's trying to say that this is going to DEFCON 1 over the kind of legal dispute that is really quite routine. You know, judges issue preliminary orders in cases all the time. Those often do not reflect the final disposition of a case. Often the very same judge, when he gets into further deliberation and reviews all the arguments, will reach a different decision.

So temporary orders at the outset of lawsuits are quite common. And the entire legal system is premised on the idea that there will be appeals. Everyone is entitled to an automatic appeal of a district court to a circuit court, and then the Supreme Court exists above that. So the idea that the judge issues an order that you disagree with, even if you think it is, you know, incredibly mistaken—

So temporary orders at the outset of lawsuits are quite common. And the entire legal system is premised on the idea that there will be appeals. Everyone is entitled to an automatic appeal of a district court to a circuit court, and then the Supreme Court exists above that. So the idea that the judge issues an order that you disagree with, even if you think it is, you know, incredibly mistaken—

So temporary orders at the outset of lawsuits are quite common. And the entire legal system is premised on the idea that there will be appeals. Everyone is entitled to an automatic appeal of a district court to a circuit court, and then the Supreme Court exists above that. So the idea that the judge issues an order that you disagree with, even if you think it is, you know, incredibly mistaken—

Impeachment is not the remedy, and we know that because there have only been 15 judges impeached since 1789, eight of which were ultimately convicted by the Senate and removed from office. And they were people who, you know, had also been convicted of crimes or other kinds of true misconduct, not simply crimes. making a decision that the president thinks is egregiously wrong.

Impeachment is not the remedy, and we know that because there have only been 15 judges impeached since 1789, eight of which were ultimately convicted by the Senate and removed from office. And they were people who, you know, had also been convicted of crimes or other kinds of true misconduct, not simply crimes. making a decision that the president thinks is egregiously wrong.

Impeachment is not the remedy, and we know that because there have only been 15 judges impeached since 1789, eight of which were ultimately convicted by the Senate and removed from office. And they were people who, you know, had also been convicted of crimes or other kinds of true misconduct, not simply crimes. making a decision that the president thinks is egregiously wrong.

So that is what the chief justice is saying, that, you know, there is a process for resolving these things. And immediately calling for the impeachment of a judge because you lost an early round in court strikes him as inappropriate.

So that is what the chief justice is saying, that, you know, there is a process for resolving these things. And immediately calling for the impeachment of a judge because you lost an early round in court strikes him as inappropriate.

So that is what the chief justice is saying, that, you know, there is a process for resolving these things. And immediately calling for the impeachment of a judge because you lost an early round in court strikes him as inappropriate.

Well, they want courts to stay out of their way. I mean, their messaging, we don't know what kind of subliminal or psychological effect, but this is a very, very combative administration. I mean, their rhetoric is not, we respectfully disagree with the court and intend to appeal. Their rhetoric is this judge is a lunatic and should be impeached.

Well, they want courts to stay out of their way. I mean, their messaging, we don't know what kind of subliminal or psychological effect, but this is a very, very combative administration. I mean, their rhetoric is not, we respectfully disagree with the court and intend to appeal. Their rhetoric is this judge is a lunatic and should be impeached.