The Judiciary Thread

[CrimsonJazz]

It's clear to me that the courts are going to be working overtime for the next three and a half years, so maybe it's time for a dedicated thread. It seems like there is a great deal of tension within this important branch of government. Here's a good leadoff into the topic.

Federal judges are going on the offensive against SCOTUS

WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

A judge appointed by President Barack Obama said that while the Supreme Court could do more to explain itself, some lower court judges had been out of line in blocking Trump policies.

“Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry,” he said. “They are partially right to feel the way they feel.”

But, the judge added, “the whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”

I'm genuinely stunned to see a take this honest.

The shadow docket has exploded in recent years, with the first Trump administration turbo-charging the trend by rushing to the Supreme Court when lower court rulings blocked nationwide policies.

Before the recent surge, most emergency cases involved death row inmates’ attempts to block their executions at the eleventh hour, and the court would normally handle them via terse orders with no explanation. But the increase in cases in hot-button nationwide disputes, sparked in part by presidents of both parties relying more on executive orders than passing legislation via Congress, has put greater scrutiny on the court’s reasoning.

And suddenly the problem comes into focus. Everyone on this board has bemoaned the fact that the legislature isn't holding up its end. This is precisely what paves the way for more of this "legislation from the bench." However, just throwing the politically-motived judges overboard isn't going to solve anything until Congress gets its crap together. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Anyway, this is a pretty fair article that should interest both Dems and Reps.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Amy Coney Barrett Speaks

People think the Supreme Court is about promoting justice. It’s really about judging what the law requires, writes Amy Coney Barrett for The Free Press.

www.thefp.com

A few months before I was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, I spent an afternoon with a favorite aunt. We’re close, despite fundamentally different opinions on a variety of topics. (In fact, she’ll openly say that while she loves me, she would have preferred my seat to be filled by the nominee of a Democratic president.)

 

[Bamaro]

Trump derangement syndrome can go both ways since trump himself is somewhat deranged.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Trump derangement syndrome can go both ways since trump himself is somewhat deranged.

This reminds me of a pastor friend of mine and his take:

There's two things that drive me crazy: the people who think everything Trump does or says is right, and the people who think everything Trump does or says is wrong.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

 

[jthomas666]

'Playing cops and robbers like children'. Federal judge blasts DOJ for DC crime crackdown

The move, following numerous other refusals, is another setback for Trump’s handpicked U.S. attorney in DC, former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro.

www.usatoday.com

Pirro can't even indict a ham sandwich...

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Here's a take on the first article above:

Roberts Invites Leftist Bullying Campaigns Against SCOTUS

The left's perpetual belief that bullying campaigns against SCOTUS work can be attributed to Chief Justice John Roberts.

thefederalist.com

It’s been widely reported for years that Chief Justice John Roberts has altered his jurisprudence in pivotal matters before the Supreme Court to preserve what he views as the “legitimacy” of the judiciary. So, it comes as no surprise that America’s leftist media have sought to exploit that weakness by trying to bully the Bush appointee into giving them the judicial outcomes they want.

That appeared to be a major goal of an NBC News article published Thursday, which contained critical remarks from anonymous lower court judges upset that the Supreme Court won’t entertain their judicial coup against the Trump administration. While many of these unnamed judges whined about the high court’s use of the emergency docket to temporarily block injunctions on the administration’s policies, several of them noticeably directed their verbal fire at Roberts, who they argued should do more to push back against President Trump’s criticisms of the lower judiciary’s overreaching antics.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I’m going to introduce legislation to hold judges accountable when violent repeat offenders they release commit new crimes.

It’s easy to release criminals when you’re protected by an armed bailiff at all times. The rest of us aren’t so lucky.

Those 12+ judges that released Decarlos Brown Jr. should have their day in court too.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1964790291426340938

Can legislation like this actually get passed? If a bartender can be liable for serving one too many drinks to a guy who goes out and runs over a pedestrian, one would think the same principle could be applied here.

 

[jthomas666]

I’m going to introduce legislation to hold judges accountable when violent repeat offenders they release commit new crimes.

It’s easy to release criminals when you’re protected by an armed bailiff at all times. The rest of us aren’t so lucky.

Those 12+ judges that released Decarlos Brown Jr. should have their day in court too.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1964790291426340938

Can legislation like this actually get passed? If a bartender can be liable for serving one too many drinks to a guy who goes out and runs over a pedestrian, one would think the same principle could be applied here.

1. Big difference between a bartender and a judge. My guess is that it would currently be treated to qualified immunity; if non-criminal infractions, it might get sent to the bar (heh).

2. Let's say that a judge dismisses a case on procedural grounds. If that perp commits another crime, should we prosecute the judge who followed the law, or police that didn't?

3. The honorable Mr. Fine forgets that the and the rest of Congress have their own sworn, armed protectors.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

1. Big difference between a bartender and a judge. My guess is that it would currently be treated to qualified immunity; if non-criminal infractions, it might get sent to the bar (heh).

2. Let's say that a judge dismisses a case on procedural grounds. If that perp commits another crime, should we prosecute the judge who followed the law, or police that didn't?

3. The honorable Mr. Fine forgets that the and the rest of Congress have their own sworn, armed protectors.

All valid points (and nice pun, BTW.) No, it's gonna be hard as hell to pull something like this off (which is what prompted the question.) As far as I can tell, no normal person likes the revolving door of justice we've been seeing for some time now. At the other end of the extreme is legislation like the "three strikes" law that can end with a life sentence.

I've been abundantly clear that I separate crimes between violent and non-violent and this pretty much decides my views on attempts at "tough on crime" legislation. Yes, some of these judges make insane decisions and I'm wondering if this can be shored up with legislation or will it just get bogged down in the quagmire of bureaucracy while violent felons continue to disease our society. At some point, someone needs to answer for this.

 

[jthomas666]

All valid points (and nice pun, BTW.) No, it's gonna be hard as hell to pull something like this off (which is what prompted the question.) As far as I can tell, no normal person likes the revolving door of justice we've been seeing for some time now. At the other end of the extreme is legislation like the "three strikes" law that can end with a life sentence.

I've been abundantly clear that I separate crimes between violent and non-violent and this pretty much decides my views on attempts at "tough on crime" legislation. Yes, some of these judges make insane decisions and I'm wondering if this can be shored up with legislation or will it just get bogged down in the quagmire of bureaucracy while violent felons continue to disease our society. At some point, someone needs to answer for this.

While it certainly appears that SOMEONE screwed up here, we need more details.

Here's a timeline of Brown's legal issues prior to the murder (it's not complete, but hey, that's jornalism today. My Comm II professor would have roasted anyone doing such a crap job of reportage--and it's the best I've found thus far).

Brown has been arrested at least 14 times, on account of felony larceny, robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault, shoplifting and making threats, according to documents reviewed by the New York Post.

WSOC-TV reported that the suspect is homeless, having previously served a five-year sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon in 2014.

Brown was released in September 2020 and was shortly arrested again for assaulting his sister at her home in Charlotte. [disposition of the case?]

In January 2025, Brown got in trouble with the police for making false emergency calls to 911, as well as being on or near Novant Health Property.

In addition, Brown's mom claims that he's been diagnosed with schizophrenia shortly after he was released from prison.

So his most recent brush with the law was when he was picked up for misusing 911 (a misdemeanor) in Jan of this year. ONE judge was involved in the decision to release him--what did the other 11 do? when?

Analyze the process, determine where the process broke down, then improve the process.

This is not the time to do a wholesale renovation of the judiciary--particularly given how completely the GOP Congress has been coopted by the administration.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Michigan judge dismisses case against 15 alleged 'fake electors' in 2020 election

A Michigan judge has dismissed the case against 15 individuals accused of being "fake electors" for Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

abcnews.go.com

A Michigan judge has dismissed the case against 15 individuals accused of being "fake electors" for Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

Judge Kristen Simmons on Tuesday said she found insufficient evidence to prove the defendants acted with criminal intent.

"This is a fraud case, and we have to prove intent, and I don't believe that there's sufficient evidence to prove intent," she said during a hearing Tuesday.

"I believe that they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress, and that's based on the statements of all of the people's witnesses," said the judge. "For those reasons, these cases will not be bound over to the circuit court. Each case will be dismissed."

"The prosecution would like the court to believe that these named defendants were savvy or sophisticated enough to fully understand the electoral process -- which the court does disagree because the document that was presented doesn't even align with the level of sophistication that they want me to believe," Judge Simmons said.

 

[Huckleberry]

Michigan judge dismisses case against 15 alleged 'fake electors' in 2020 election

A Michigan judge has dismissed the case against 15 individuals accused of being "fake electors" for Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

abcnews.go.com

Being a nutcase conspiracy theorist or MAGA cult whacko isn't by itself against the law.

Judge Simmons herself made it clear: “The prosecution would like the court to believe that these named defendants were savvy or sophisticated enough to fully understand the electoral process—which the court does disagree because the document that was presented doesn't even align with the level of sophistication that they want me to believe.”

Translation: these weren’t criminal masterminds. They were gullible - manipulated by Trump and his inner circle into believing lies and acting on them. Yes, they were deluded fools, but that doesn’t make them the true villains. The people who knowingly spread the lies, weaponized them, and used these followers as pawns? Those are the ones who belong in jail.

 

[Bazza]

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Democrat judge in America's 'Muslim capital' BANS gay pride flags

A Michigan city with a significant Muslim immigrant population banned pride flags on public property, and a judge recently upheld the ban, saying it was consitutional.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A federal judge has upheld a ban on gay pride flags after a years-long battle by an all-Muslim city council to remove the rainbow because it did not reflect their community's values.

The court found that Hamtramck, an enclave surrounded by Detroit with a significant Muslim immigrant population, did not violate the US Constitution when it banned the flag from public buildings in 2023.

 

[Crimson1967]

Democrat judge in America's 'Muslim capital' BANS gay pride flags

A Michigan city with a significant Muslim immigrant population banned pride flags on public property, and a judge recently upheld the ban, saying it was consitutional.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I would think MAGA would support this.

The Hamtramck flag ban restricted public property to only display the American flag, Michigan flag, city flag and flags that represent the 'international character' of the city's population.

They should limit it to US, state, and city. That said, I don’t have a problem if the city flies a Pride flag on its property.

 

[Huckleberry]

I would think MAGA would support this.

The Hamtramck flag ban restricted public property to only display the American flag, Michigan flag, city flag and flags that represent the 'international character' of the city's population.

They should limit it to US, state, and city. That said, I don’t have a problem if the city flies a Pride flag on its property.

Yeah, that exception for flags that represent the “international character” of the local population seems a bit suspicious.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I would think MAGA would support this.

The Hamtramck flag ban restricted public property to only display the American flag, Michigan flag, city flag and flags that represent the 'international character' of the city's population.

They should limit it to US, state, and city. That said, I don’t have a problem if the city flies a Pride flag on its property.

To be perfectly frank, I didn't particularly care about the flags one way or the other. Often judges' decisions get questioned around here and if someone had a take on this one, I was willing to read it. I'm no lawyer, but I do enjoy earnest discussion about the law.

 

[Crimson1967]

To be perfectly frank, I didn't particularly care about the flags one way or the other. Often judges' decisions get questioned around here and if someone had a take on this one, I was willing to read it. I'm no lawyer, but I do enjoy earnest discussion about the law.

I believe if the city wants to limit what flags fly on city property that’s their business. The same if a city in Alabama doesn’t want a Confederate statue on city property.

 

[CrimsonJazz]