MIKE DAVIS: Why SCOTUS defying Obama judge must be impeached to protect elections

A federal judge got overturned by the Supreme Court on Friday and by Monday was issuing basically the same order again, just with a new label on it. That's the part of this story that should stop everyone cold. This isn't a disagreement about legal theory. It's a district judge looking at a reversal from the highest court in the land and deciding it doesn't apply to her.

Call it what it is: a dare. Talwani's original injunction against Trump's election security rule got tossed by SCOTUS, and instead of taking the hint, she reached for a different procedural label, a temporary restraining order, and landed right back where she started. If that's allowed to stand as normal judicial behavior, then Supreme Court rulings are just opening offers, not final answers. Every judge with a grudge and a docket can just wait a news cycle and refile.

We're not reflexively in the impeachment business. It's a blunt instrument and Congress should be careful with it. But the point of the process is exactly for cases like this, where a judge appears to be treating an appellate reversal as an inconvenience rather than a command. If district courts can shrug off the Supreme Court by swapping paperwork, the whole structure of appellate review stops meaning anything.

Election security rules are going to get litigated hard, and they should be. Nobody's asking judges to rubber-stamp anything. We're asking them to lose occasionally and act like it.