Laura Ingraham And Stephen Miller Slam Judges As ‘Communist’ In Fiery Rant

X/@IngrahamAngle

The Fox News host for Laura Ingraham and former Trump anti-establishment loyalist Stephen Miller launched a fiery tirade against the federal judges who, in the view of the accusers, staged a “judicial coup” against American democracy. Instantaneous eruptions of criticism against the dangerous and anti-democratic rhetoric followed online.

Advertisement

The segment opened with Ingraham lamenting several “communist judges” about whom she said that they were “grinding the gears of government to a halt,” “questioning election results.” She placed the fate of democracy on the scales, implying that the Supreme Court was now duty-bound to step in and curb, in her words, the “violence” being wrought upon the institutions of the land.

These accusations were further cemented by Miller with an additional light sprinkling of hyperbole. Miller’s name has become synonymous with hard-line approaches to immigration under the Trump administration. The judges had taken it upon themselves to prohibit lawful executive actions, especially those aimed at preventing foreign nationals from entering the U.S., he asserted: “The president’s authority to prevent foreign nationals from entering the country is one of his greatest and highest authorities,” he averred dismissing any judicial oversight.

At this point, Harvard University entered the frame as both hosts alleged the establishment was putting interests of foreigners above those of American citizens. Ingraham said the university had subjected itself to “decades of invidious, unlawful and illegal race-based discrimination,” while Miller said judges were ensuring that this lawlessness upon Harvard continues.

The segment was very harshly criticized in social media circles, many accusing Ingraham and Miller of undermining the rule of law. One user sarcastically responded, “Activist judges tied to The Federalist Society? Laura you are too much,” emphasizing the irony of conservative political actors attacking judges appointed by Republican administrations.

Others could not conceal the hypocrisy of craigslist-style dismissal of the judiciary as a restraining power on the executive. “In a democracy, the laws and rules aren’t decided by one person—that’s a dictatorship,” wrote one commenter. Another added, “Judges follow the law. Donald Trump breaks laws,” referring to the new rampage of legal troubles for the former president.

Such reactions were not limited to political opponents. Some on the conservative side were also uneasy about the rhetoric. “Dangerous rhetoric putting lives in danger,” warned another user; one more bluntly stated, “This guy is a vile little human,” referring to Miller.

That discussion would bring questions about the role of democracy back into the limelight. The courts were defended by others as a necessary check on executive overreach: “Until Congress does their job, injunctions are necessary to prevent the executive overreach of both parties,” one comment read.

Yet, the harshest criticisms came from those who see the segment as a bald-faced attack on democratic norms. “We live in a democracy with three coequal branches of government,” one user wrote. “What kind of excuse for a human being thinks it’s okay to put judges in harm’s way just because you disagree with their decisions?”

This controversy highlights the increasing polarization around the judiciary, which has increasingly become a political battleground. The Ingraham-Miller commentaries typify a broader strain of conservative thought that increasingly views the courts not as a check on constitutional order but as a threat against it.

Advertisement

Whether this kind of talk will result in action or will be a total disaster is yet to be seen. One thing is certain, however: judicious power is an extraordinarily sticky subject on its own, and with the Supreme Court looming to take charge of some very sensitive matters, what could be more at stake?