Judge James Boasberg, who serves on the D.C. District Court, participated in what appears to be nothing more than a Democrat strategy session masquerading as a legal conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. 

The conference's agenda items, "Judges in a Democracy" and "State of Democracy," sound eerily similar to the Democrats' tiresome 2024 campaign rhetoric about "saving democracy" — which, of course, has become the justification for their using the courts to obstruct Trump's agenda.

"Called a 'Privately Funded Seminar Disclosure Report," the document discloses that Boasberg was in attendance but offers no details of whether Boasberg was paid for his attendance or travel, or what the remuneration was,' reports Just the News. 

The outlet was "alerted to the conference and to Boasberg's attendance by a retired Democrat-appointed judge, who was concerned the July 2024 conference's focus on judges' role in a democracy was too close to a political party's theme for comfort."

Overseen by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the ethical rules governing federal judges require that a private entity who "issues an invitation to a federal judge to attend an educational program as a speaker, panelist, or attendee and offers to pay for or reimburse that judge, in excess of $480, must disclose financial and programmatic information." The rules do not require a specific accounting for each judge, or even how much was paid to judges at all.

[…]

It is possible that his "payment" was merely reimbursement for expenses, but Boasberg did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

The entire arrangement reeks of the same swamp politics that President Trump has been fighting since day one.

Is it any surprise that after rubbing elbows with fellow liberals at this partisan powwow, Judge Boasberg decided to obstruct Trump's efforts to remove dangerous gang members from our streets? This is exactly why Americans have lost faith in our judicial system — unelected judges attending partisan conferences, then making decisions based on partisan biases, not constitutionality.