We can thank Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy for ushering in this era of a politicized judiciary. Their treatment of Bork, and later Thomas, made political litmus tests part of the confirmation process. The result? A cadre of politicians in black robes sitting on the bench. Nowadays it seems commonplace for judges with political axes to grind to use their positions of authority to further their own agendas.
It's not just DC judges. Look how commonplace it is now for federal district judges to impose national injunctions when there's no authority in the Constitution for them to do so. More often than not their injunctions are nothing but political statements that they justify by using tortured interpretations of the law.
Chutkan and Howell definitely need to be disqualified from hearing any cases involving the Administration. They have no ability to quell their personal bias nor seemingly the desire to. I am of the opinion neither should hold their current positions.
As you know, I'm generally against blanket pardons. But the thing that keeps pushing me to revaluate my position is behavior like this. This is an unfunny joke.
Frankly, from what I have read about Banuelos, I would not have pardoned him if I was President (Ha!) and was asked to grant a pardon. But that is beside the point, isn't it? The larger point that I hope to make is even if the recipient was Jack the Ripper, this is a judge who should not be on the bench, if this Order is any indication of her judicial acumen. I hope to be able to get it to the attention of DOJ and have someone there take a serious look at her entire record, combined with the points I have made in this, and file DQ motions if she is assigned to any other cases involving Trump or the administration.
All true. But one passing point about these BS dismissals without prejudice. The Federal statute of limitations is 5 years and expires Jan 5, 2026, 10.5 months from now. Trump will still be POTUS and Bondi will still be AG. The risk of re-prosecution is zero. 747s would have to simultaneously hit a Cabinet meeting, a House Republican Conference meeting and a Senate Republican Conference meeting for the Democrats to have any chance of re-prosecuting these people, AND they’d have to litigate the effectiveness of the pardons.
So do you think that she was just trying to signal to everyone that she was “resisting” by refusing to dismiss with prejudice? Is that her proper role?
“ In contrast, when an indictment is dismissed against a defendant who has never been convicted, they never pay a fine for the offense and have no criminal conviction on their record (at least for the offenses pardoned).”
Did you mean “( at least for the offenses dismissed)”?
Thanks for your eagle eye and this catch. I have corrected it but it is particularly embarrassing when writing about a judge who didn't know the difference between a pardon and a pre-conviction dismissal. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
We can thank Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy for ushering in this era of a politicized judiciary. Their treatment of Bork, and later Thomas, made political litmus tests part of the confirmation process. The result? A cadre of politicians in black robes sitting on the bench. Nowadays it seems commonplace for judges with political axes to grind to use their positions of authority to further their own agendas.
It's not just DC judges. Look how commonplace it is now for federal district judges to impose national injunctions when there's no authority in the Constitution for them to do so. More often than not their injunctions are nothing but political statements that they justify by using tortured interpretations of the law.
Nailed it, my friend.
Chutkan and Howell definitely need to be disqualified from hearing any cases involving the Administration. They have no ability to quell their personal bias nor seemingly the desire to. I am of the opinion neither should hold their current positions.
Amen.
Are Judges required to file financial disclosures? Would love to see hers.
Not sure. I think that they do when nominated but don't know about later.
"Sloppy or venal, take your pick." Employ the liberating power of "and".
I choose uneducated concerning legal principles and incapable of rational thought. 🙂🙂🙂
When you appoint judges based on the color of their skin you get rulings of this quality
Is it really so hard to believe that a DEI judge struggled to make a lawful decision?
I'm pretty confident that Pam Bondi will get this resolved. She's not playing around.
Any idea how to get this to her? I would like to pursue that.
I think Pam Bondi is on Substack.
She’s in DC, the judge is in DC, Trump has her phone number. I’m pretty sure they won’t miss this.
Launch investigations into these judges.
There is going to a lot more of this. Some one needs to be made an example.
Keep your eyes peeled here. More on this coming soon.
The essay presents an argument with better reason, actual facts and a better proposed solution than the unethical Judge.
The article and the comments were superb. How can Trump be given a Subscription???
Easy. You write him and send him a link!
As you know, I'm generally against blanket pardons. But the thing that keeps pushing me to revaluate my position is behavior like this. This is an unfunny joke.
Frankly, from what I have read about Banuelos, I would not have pardoned him if I was President (Ha!) and was asked to grant a pardon. But that is beside the point, isn't it? The larger point that I hope to make is even if the recipient was Jack the Ripper, this is a judge who should not be on the bench, if this Order is any indication of her judicial acumen. I hope to be able to get it to the attention of DOJ and have someone there take a serious look at her entire record, combined with the points I have made in this, and file DQ motions if she is assigned to any other cases involving Trump or the administration.
All true. But one passing point about these BS dismissals without prejudice. The Federal statute of limitations is 5 years and expires Jan 5, 2026, 10.5 months from now. Trump will still be POTUS and Bondi will still be AG. The risk of re-prosecution is zero. 747s would have to simultaneously hit a Cabinet meeting, a House Republican Conference meeting and a Senate Republican Conference meeting for the Democrats to have any chance of re-prosecuting these people, AND they’d have to litigate the effectiveness of the pardons.
So do you think that she was just trying to signal to everyone that she was “resisting” by refusing to dismiss with prejudice? Is that her proper role?
Respectively, yes and fuck no.
It was a rhetorical question, I suppose.
Fair enough, but I was eager to clarify my umbrage at these judges’ petulance.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.V5SiR6OVXzDrM4FhAZTkrQHaHg%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=ce1d952181021acc1713d290dfb20e04e908ab397ff861b7ae99cf0ac62a1bbd&ipo=images
“ In contrast, when an indictment is dismissed against a defendant who has never been convicted, they never pay a fine for the offense and have no criminal conviction on their record (at least for the offenses pardoned).”
Did you mean “( at least for the offenses dismissed)”?
Thanks for your eagle eye and this catch. I have corrected it but it is particularly embarrassing when writing about a judge who didn't know the difference between a pardon and a pre-conviction dismissal. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
The Biden Admin routinely ignored Judges orders. So much so it is Precedent.
Did shitcan actually pass the bar ? Time to look into most of the moronic judges and prosecutors in America! Bet 80 never qualified!!