Former litigator Andrea Widburg has issued a critical analysis of federal judges’ behavior, arguing that they are increasingly operating without accountability and undermining the balance of power in the U.S. government.
Widburg, who spent three decades practicing law in San Francisco, observes that judges influenced by left-leaning ideologies have been “making up” the law as they go along. She references a comment attributed to then-Judge Scalia: “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.”
She contends these judicial activists are undeterred by higher court reversals because they perceive such setbacks not as errors but as politically motivated attacks, dismissing them with criticism like “first-year law students could avoid.” Widburg cites that roughly 80 percent of rulings against President Trump have been overturned on appeal.
The author further notes this phenomenon is not limited to U.S. courts—similar trends are observed in countries such as El Salvador and Brazil where unelected judges allegedly hold disproportionate sway over governmental functions, including elections.
As an example, Widburg references a situation where foreign-born judges contributed to political interference, pointing to actions like detaining Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro despite no constitutional basis for judicial supremacy. She questions the notion that judicial power is constitutionally mandated as “supreme.”
The core argument posits that judicial errors are not checked by any higher authority since Article III does not provide an avenue for correction or removal based on incompetence, and their interpretations often overstep into legislative authority without legal justification.
Federal Judges Increasingly Seen as Overreaching: Critics Warn of Unchecked Power
Former litigator Andrea Widburg has issued a sharp critique of federal judges, warning that they are increasingly acting beyond the bounds of constitutional authority. Speaking from decades of experience in law practice, Widburg described how some jurists appear to prioritize personal agendas over impartial judging.
The issue stems from what she describes as judicial activism fueled by political ideology rather than legal principle. She cites rulings against former President Donald Trump as proof—approximately 80 percent were reversed on appeal despite being labeled “bush-league mistakes.” The key, according to Widburg, is that these reversals don’t indicate legal errors but merely reflect politically motivated opposition.
This phenomenon isn’t limited to the U.S., with parallels drawn to judicial overreach in other nations like Brazil where a radical judiciary allegedly blocked legitimate governance. She questions the assumption of “judicial supremacy” which lacks explicit constitutional support and argues it should be reined in by elected officials who understand the limits of judicial power.
