Senator Ted Cruz is many things—constitutional lawyer, firebrand, and, in this case, the guy who finally said what a lot of people have been thinking: maybe, just maybe, it’s time we start holding judges accountable when they abandon the Constitution in favor of partisan activism masquerading as jurisprudence. In a Senate hearing that most Democrats probably wish had taken place behind closed doors, Cruz didn’t just toss around the I-word (that’s “impeachment,” for those keeping score)—he laid out a detailed case against two federal judges, James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman, and frankly, it’s hard to ignore.
Let’s start with the basics. Impeaching federal judges is rare—like Bigfoot-on-a-unicorn rare. But Cruz wasn’t talking about bribery or fraud here; he was talking about something that cuts deeper: a fundamental betrayal of the public trust and a judicial overreach so egregious it essentially warps the balance of power in our system. You know, the kind of stuff the Framers actually warned us about but modern Washington shrugs off like a parking ticket.
Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee—because of course she is—gave us one of the most head-scratching decisions in recent memory. She sentenced Sophie Roske (previously Nicholas Roske), who pled guilty to attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, to just eight years in prison. Eight. For a would-be political assassin. Why? Because Roske identified as transgender and apparently had a tough time in life. So now, apparently, criminal sentencing is graded on a woke curve. Attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice? Sure, but did you struggle with your identity? Did you face “adversity”? Then go ahead and knock 20 years off. This isn’t justice—it’s an ideological lottery.
Impeach Judge Boasberg and Judge Boardman now. pic.twitter.com/LLNF6rmNnk
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 8, 2026
Cruz nailed it when he called out the hypocrisy of Democrats who cry crocodile tears about threats to the judiciary every time someone critiques their pet judges—yet suddenly find their spines made of jello when it comes to punishing actual threats, like someone showing up with weapons to murder a Supreme Court justice. But hey, as long as the attacker fits the right narrative, all’s forgiven, right?
Then there’s Judge James Boasberg, who decided it was perfectly fine to let Special Counsel Jack Smith subpoena phone records from sitting members of Congress without telling them, thanks to gag orders that Boasberg himself signed. That’s right—the very people who are constitutionally protected under the Speech and Debate Clause had their records swept up in a political investigation without even knowing it. And Boasberg’s defense? “Oops, didn’t know they were senators.” Oh, well that clears it up. Who among us hasn’t accidentally greenlit surveillance on elected officials?
Smith didn’t have to tell Boasberg about the identities of the targets, thanks to a convenient little DOJ policy. But let’s be honest—judges aren’t stenographers for prosecutors. They’re supposed to ask questions. And in this case, the consequences of not asking were staggering. As law professor Rob Luther put it, did Boasberg just rubber stamp it, or was he willfully blind? Either way, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for judicial integrity.
Now, Democrats like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse are predictably clutching their pearls, accusing Cruz of trying to “intimidate the judiciary.” Funny—because if intimidating judges was the goal, wouldn’t threatening them with actual violence (like, say, showing up at their house with a Glock) qualify as just a little more intimidating than, you know, a Senate hearing?
The left’s selective outrage would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. They’re terrified of losing control over a judiciary that increasingly acts as their backstop when they can’t win through legislation. And let’s be clear: Cruz isn’t calling for impeachment over a bad ruling or a political disagreement. He’s talking about serious, structural breaches of the public trust. That’s exactly why the impeachment clause exists.
Of course, getting two-thirds of the Senate to vote to remove these judges? Not likely. Democrats will close ranks faster than you can say “activist bench.” But the point isn’t just removal—it’s accountability. It’s putting the judiciary on notice that the Constitution still matters and that robes aren’t shields for partisan agendas.
So while the Beltway media will spin this as political theater, what Cruz has done is far more substantial: he’s drawn a bright, bold line. If you twist the law to serve ideology or protect your political team, there are consequences—or at least, there should be. And maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of a long-overdue reckoning.
