#gophatesdemocracy — Public Fediverse posts

Gym Jordan is such an incompetent, asinine tool! And far too much of the GOP wants to put their thumbs on the scales of justice and undermine real attempts to hold Trump and his minions accountable for blatant attempts to destroy our democracy. Party of law and order my ass! It's really the party of made-up titles that sound good, and may even get them votes but are entirely inaccurate and misleading. They don't want democracy or to share/compromise, they are only interested in winning, power and serving their looney donors and misinformed voters.

'This is how it's done': Legal experts applaud Fani Willis for sending Jim Jordan 'to the showers' - Raw Story https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-fani-willis/

#GOPHatesDemocracy
#MAGAIdiots

"Social media legal experts piled on Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) after Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis fired off a multi-page letter to the House Judiciary chairman, essentially telling him to butt out of her investigation into tampering in the 2020 presidential election.

On Thursday, the prosecutor who indicted Donald Trump and 18 alleged co-conspirators on racketeering charges (RICO) slapped down Jordan's attempts to "interfere" with her investigation, and curtly explained to him that he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the law – even accusing him of spreading "misinformation."

With regard to her filing under the RICO statute, Willis made a point of reminding the blustery Ohio Republican that he never passed the bar after attending law school, writing that he can still continue his education by purchasing legal expert John Floyd's RICO book "for the non-bar member price of $249."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

Reacting to the dressing down of Jordan, attorney Victor Shi wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, "DAMN. DA Fani Willis just sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, saying Republicans are 'obstructing a Georgia criminal proceeding' & tells Jim Jordan directly he should buy a copy of the RICO book for the 'non-bar member price.' Bravo, DA Willis. THIS is how it’s done."

He later added, "She continued to tell Jim Jordan, 'Your letter makes clear that you lack a basic understanding of the law, its practice and the ethical obligations of attorneys generally and prosecutors specifically.'"

Former Justice Department official Harry Litman also piled on, writing, "Blistering response from Fani Willis to Jim Jordan's completely improper attempt to ferret out info about her investigation and prosecution," and then added, "Really extremely aggressive pushback from Fani Willis to Jim Jordan. Letter tells him he's transgressing state sovereignty, separation of powers, administration of criminal justice, & the deliberative process privilege; then provides 'voluntary' answers that shred his arguments."

Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Tamar Hellerman, who has been covering the case, labeled Willis' letter as "spicy."

MSNBC editor Steve Benen explained, "Fani Willis could've simply ignored Jim Jordan. Instead, the prosecutor explained to the Judiciary Committee chairman that he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Conservative attorney George Conway slyly contributed, "Fani Willis sends Gym Jordan to the showers."

The X account maintained by the House Judiciary Democrats also had its say, with a link to the story accompanied by: "DA Fani Willis to Chairman Jim Jordan: 'Your letter makes clear that you lack a basic understanding of the law.'"

Lawfare reporter Anna Bower also got in a jab, writing, "Fani Willis to Jim Jordan: 'Bless your heart.'""

It is clearly not just Trump inciting the susceptible to violence. All of these inciters need to be charged or penalized in some way! Our democracy doesn't support or condone violent threats as a way of creating change, that's fascism! We vote and we get involved, we don't threaten violence! These bad actors and the people they have radicalized, aren't interested in democracy. They want power, control and violence and they don't care about the law because they think they are above it somehow. How does a democracy respond to these kinds of threats? Clearly ignoring them and wishing them away doesn't work!!! Our response to attacks on our democracy and the law must be strong and unequivocal! Well, Gardner?!

Far-right fury over Trump’s indictment has shades of January 6 https://www.fastcompany.com/90874482/far-right-fury-over-trumps-indictment-has-shades-of-january-6

#Fascism
#GOPFascism
#ViolenceIncitementAsPolitics
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#TimeToFightBack

"As soon as news broke on Thursday that former president Donald Trump had been indicted by a New York grand jury, right-wing activists took to social media platforms like Twitter and Truth Social to issue veiled threats about the retribution to come.

“Bad move,” wrote a QAnon-branded account, @Q, on Truth Social. “Houston – activate Anons,” one user replied. Another added: “The Citizens of the United States will not be deterred by our Military . . . God is on our side.”

On Twitter, the messaging was just as inflammatory. Alt-right personality Jack Posobiec tweeted at his two million followers: “Did you really think they would just let you take your country back?” followed by tweets that simply read, “Bring it” and “Are you ready.”

Ali Alexander, the organizer of the Stop the Steal protests that led to the January 6 riots, tweeted: “New York has declared a civil war on the rest of us by indicting President Donald J. Trump and stoking violence. Pray!”

It’s hard not to miss the parallels between what unfolded on Thursday and the upwelling of online anger that eventually resulted in the Capitol insurrection. And if the aftermath of January 6 is any indication, online posts like these may well be of interest to officials and tech platforms as they monitor any potential plots to protest Trump’s indictment in the coming days and weeks.

In 2021, internal documents disclosed by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen showed that the social media company had failed to act on weeks of warnings as riot participants posted on its platform that they were going to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election victory.

Social media posts have also played a role in the prosecutions of January 6 insurrectionists. At a hearing in 2021, a federal judge read aloud social media posts by a rioter before sentencing him to prison, saying the posts made it “extraordinarily difficult” to offer him leniency.

Trump was suspended from Twitter and Facebook after the January 6 riots. Both platforms have since reinstated his accounts, though Trump has only returned to Facebook, and reserves his most incendiary commentary for Truth Social, where he’s contractually obligated to post first.

But since last week, Trump has unleashed a flood of Facebook ads, some of them increasingly menacing. In a 1 a.m. Truth Social post last Friday, Trump warned of “potential death and destruction” if he was charged, something that he said would be “catastrophic for the country.” On Facebook, his campaign ran an ad that blared: “I AM YOUR RETRIBUTION.”

When a Fast Company reporter asked Meta for comment on Trump’s recent activity, a spokesperson responded with a company blog post that noted “in the event that Mr. Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed, and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation.”

The question now is whether Thursday’s indictment will indeed lead to any broader attempt at “retribution.” After all, it’s not as if Trump intends on staying silent. Following news of the indictment, he posted on Truth Social: ““THIS IS AN ATTACK ON OUR COUNTRY THE LIKES OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE. . . . SO SAD!”"

It's not like these breaches of ethics are going to stop occurring. The whole court has been gamed to give partisan advantage to the GOP. They can't effect the policies they want through democracy, so they have abandoned democracy and created a court that undemocratically has resorted to creating and changing laws and policies that are outside its purview. The court keeps accruing to itself power it should never have and making decisions that aren't just or well-reasoned but purely partisan in nature. it is a rightwing attempt to end-run around democracy and seize power.

'This defines the Roberts Court': Chief justice's wife earns millions placing lawyers at firms that argue cases - Alternet.org https://www.alternet.org/this-defines-the-roberts-court/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#SupremeCourtEthics
#JudiciaryEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower
#GOPHatesDemocracy

"The highly controversial and highly unpopular U.S. Supreme Court isn’t just facing a historic loss of confidence, it’s now facing yet another ethics scandal that is likely to lower even further public opinion of the far-right institution that in under two decades has seen its approval rating slashed.

Although it will not hear arguments, the issue before the Supreme Court and the American people’s view of it, is, should a justice’s spouse – in this case the spouse of Chief Justice John Roberts – be able to make millions of dollars recruiting attorneys who are placed into top law firms that argue cases before it?

That’s the latest allegation, and already a spokesperson for the Court has issued a statement denying any ethical violations.

The New York Times reports that “a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.”

The GOP now represents the worst tendencies in humans. Hatred, fear, blaming, cruelty, and exclusivity instead of inclusivity. It's always easier to hate and blame than understand and accept. What the GOP stands for undermines the very nature of societies, and is anything but what christ stood for. We resign ourselves to the dustbin of history if we don't face and transform what the GOP is doing to America. And they're doing it mostly for greed and power-hunger. The opposite of what real societies are based upon.

Opinion | Jeffries's poetry and Biden's grace highlight the GOP's thuggishness - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/09/jeffries-alphabet-speech-republicans/

#GOPFearAndHatred
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPUnAmerican
#AllInThisTogether
#GOPIsSociopathic

"From both Jeffries and Biden, then, we get a full recitation of American values: kindness, empathy, inclusion, generosity, decency and optimism. They echo the sensibility of the 20th-century mourner who was asked whether he had known the just-deceased President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He famously replied, “I didn’t know him, but he knew me.” The Democrats of this century know Americans, too.

The gap between that humanistic vision and what we see from the Republican Party could not be more stark. Violence (whether inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, or inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2023) and toxic masculinity seem to be endemic to a party that scorns the police who defended them two years ago and minimizes the brutality of the mob.

This is a crowd that delights in mocking the vulnerable and bullying the defenseless, persecuting refugees, elevating their selfish aims over the needs of others and fanning bitterness and vengefulness.

The Republican Party aim is to define America as a White Christian nation, bolstered by an apocalyptic fear of the Great Replacement conspiracy and a perpetual sense of victimhood. The MAGA camp’s character is displayed in the surly reception (and, in some cases, boycotts) given to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his speech to Congress.

It is exemplified, too, in former president Donald Trump’s ongoing abuse and attacks on election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, in the forced birth crowd’s insistence that a teen be compelled to bear her rapist’s child, in MAGA lawmakers’ refusal to extend the child tax credit that lifted more than 2 million children out of poverty, and in the House Republicans’ obsession with inquisitions into fake scandals and phony conspiracies.

It’s no coincidence that the most viable Republican challenger to Trump is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has repeatedly used his power to crush dissent, harass innocent voters, vilify manufacturers of lifesaving vaccines and cultivate the image of a bully. He fits right in with today’s GOP.

One doesn’t even need to know the two parties’ policy positions to know there is a world of difference in their vision and character. Poetry and grace on one side, thuggishness and fury on the other. Americans cannot say they lack a stark choice."

The wealthy and corporations want to control the country and have no use for democracy. They only want power and money. They see people as a means to getting money and power, not as equals. They want their serfs back!

The memo that broke American politics by Robert Reich
https://www.rawstory.com/lewis-powell/

#GreedKills
#GOPInBedWithRich
#GOPCorporateShills
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#MoneyIsNotSpeech
#CorporationsRNotPeople
#LewisPowellSucks
#WantTheirSerfsBack

"In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked Lewis Powell, a corporate attorney who would go on to become a Supreme Court justice, to draft a memo on the state of the country.

Powell’s memo argued that the American economic system was “under broad attack” from consumer, labor, and environmental groups.

In reality, these groups were doing nothing more than enforcing the implicit social contract that had emerged at the end of the Second World War. They wanted to ensure corporations were responsive to all their stakeholders — workers, consumers, and the environment — not just their shareholders.

But Powell and the Chamber saw it differently. In his memo, Powell urged businesses to mobilize for political combat, and stressed that the critical ingredients for success were joint organizing and funding.

The Chamber distributed the memo to leading CEOs, large businesses, and trade associations — hoping to persuade them that Big Business could dominate American politics in ways not seen since the Gilded Age.

It worked.

The Chamber’s call for a business crusade birthed a new corporate-political industry practically overnight. Tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists and political operatives descended on Washington and state capitals across the country.

I should know — I saw it happen with my own eyes.

In 1976, I worked at the Federal Trade Commission. Jimmy Carter had appointed consumer advocates to battle big corporations that for years had been deluding or injuring consumers.

Yet almost everything we initiated at the FTC was met by unexpectedly fierce political resistance from Congress. At one point, when we began examining advertising directed at children, Congress stopped funding the agency altogether, shutting it down for weeks.

I was dumbfounded. What had happened?

In three words, The Powell Memo.

Lobbyists and their allies in Congress, and eventually the Reagan administration, worked to defang agencies like the FTC — and to staff them with officials who would overlook corporate misbehavior.

Their influence led the FTC to stop seriously enforcing antitrust laws — among other things — allowing massive corporations to merge and concentrate their power even further.
...
Meanwhile, Justice Lewis Powell used the Court to chip away at restrictions on corporate power in politics. His opinions in the 1970s and 80s laid the foundation for corporations to claim free speech rights in the form of financial contributions to political campaigns.

Put another way — without Lewis Powell, there would probably be no Citizens United — the case that threw out limits on corporate campaign spending as a violation of the “free speech” of corporations.

These actions have transformed our political system. Corporate money supports platoons of lawyers, often outgunning any state or federal attorneys who dare to stand in their way. Lobbying has become a $3.7 billion dollar industry.

Corporations regularly outspend labor unions and public interest groups during election years. And too many politicians in Washington represent the interests of corporations — not their constituents. As a result, corporate taxes have been cut, loopholes widened, and regulations gutted.

Corporate consolidation has also given companies unprecedented market power, allowing them to raise prices on everything from baby formula to gasoline. Their profits have jumped into the stratosphere — the highest in 70 years.

But despite the success of the Powell Memo, Big Business has not yet won. The people are beginning to fight back.

First, antitrust is making a comeback. Both at the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department we’re seeing a new willingness to take on corporate power.

Second, working people are standing up. Across the country workers are unionizing at a faster rate than we’ve seen in decades — including at some of the biggest corporations in the world — and they’re winning.

Third, campaign finance reform is within reach. Millions of Americans are intent on limiting corporate money in politics – and politicians are starting to listen.

All of these tell me that now is our best opportunity in decades to take on corporate power — at the ballot box, in the workplace, and in Washington.

Let’s get it done."

Good overview of why the GOP hates the 14th Amendment

How the 14th Amendment Is Democracy's Leg-Shaped Lamp https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a42310922/14th-amendment-democracy/
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#PartisanSupremeCourt

"The 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been treated like the leg-shaped lamp in A Christmas Story, if the leg-shaped lamp were a motion-sensitive high-intensity laser that would vaporize you if you got too close. Certainly, it has its uses. If it hadn't had its uses, conservatives would not have been so dedicated to dodging its requirements, minimizing its importance, and otherwise stashing it in the old constitutional attic in the hopes that nobody notices it still works if you turn it on. As my friend, the constitutional scholar Garrett Epps put it in Democracy Reborn, his exemplary history of the 14th:

By the first decade of the Twentieth Century, white Southerners had found dozens of ways to lock black Southerners, and their white allies out of political power. They had begun to rebuild the "intellectual blockade," enforcing ideological unity on the region[...]
...
It's indeed a whopper, passed in the wake of the Civil War and aimed at eliminating all of the proximate and long-standing causes of that war, particularly slavery and white supremacy. To wit: That is some serious constitutionalizing there. No wonder it scared the galluses off of hayshaker racist politicians and Gilded Age plutocrats the way it did. No wonder they rigged things so that the 14th didn't mean what its authors plainly meant.

But damned if the 14th didn't fight back. It was central to the winning arguments in important civil rights and civil liberties cases, including Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Its guarantees of due process have been central to every decision concerning a right to privacy, even though there is no specific right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution, which drives conservatives batty.
...
And as Michael Meltsner, of Northeastern University's school of law, writes inThe American Prospect, Section 2 pretty plainly empowers the federal government to knuckle states that engage in voter suppression:

Though few even know of its existence, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear. It provides that, if any state abridges the franchise of males over 21, “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,” that state loses the equivalent population numbers counted to determine representatives in Congress...But in 1868, the members of the then-dominant Republican Party were far more concerned that the 13th Amendment, by abolishing slavery, had excised the infamous three-fifths clause of the original document. If no further action was taken, former slaves who were still blocked from voting by state policies and multiple forms of intimidation, would nevertheless be counted in the population of the rebel states, threatening to increase their representation in Congress.
...
As Meltsner observes, there is currently a case, Citizens for Constitutional Integrity v. Census Bureau, that seeks to rectify what he calls "155 years of indifference."

It is alleged in the suit that Wisconsin’s strict photo ID law, which former GOP staffers have acknowledged was intended to disenfranchise Democrats, results in abridging the votes of some 300,000 voters, approximately 9 percent of the state’s registrants. If Section 2 were applied as intended, Pettinato argues that Wisconsin would lose a congressional district due to this disenfranchisement, a seat that New York, for example, would gain.
This long-shot suit, of course, would be a valuable weapon in cracking the death grip on democracy that unfettered gerrymandering has placed upon it.
...
The same goes to the more celebrated references to Section 3, which clearly states that any elected official hallowed by oath to defend the Constitution who then attempts to obstruct or overthrow constitutional government doesn't get a second chance at federal office. As Rep. Jamie Raskin explained to The New York Times, "We have to dust it off."

Not Being Able To Run For Office is a pretty light punishment for attempting a coup, especially relative to what happens to leaders of unsuccessful coups elsewhere...saying that former elected federal officials who had gone over to the Confederacy, should consider themselves lucky that they only would be disqualified from office. They were lucky not to be hanged.
...
The 14th Amendment has always been scary because it calls every bluff in American politics from the Declaration of Independence forward. It demands aggressive engagement not only by elected politicians, but also by the people who elected them. Far better to leave it up there in the attic, where the children can't find it and hurt themselves."

The right-wing partisans on the supreme court are attempting to steal the power to control the direction of the country. The least we can do is use the few actions at our disposal that could help illuminate the partisan corruption that underlies their actions!!

'Let’s do that!' Internet cheers Republican warning that Supreme Court Justices' tax returns could go public - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism https://www.rawstory.com/lets-do-that-internet-cheers-republican-warning-that-supreme-court-justices-tax-returns-could-go-public-2658992856/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#GOPLovesPower #GOPHatesDemocracy

"On social media, given the historic unpopularity of this Supreme Court, many applauded the idea of its justices having their tax returns made public – something that likely would never happen

“Yes!” declared Carnegie Mellon University professor Uju Anya. “Tell us who bought and paid for the Supreme Court Justices. Please and thank you.”

“Great!” exclaimed Mother Jones editor-in-chief Clara Jeffery. “Let’s do that!”

READ MORE: ‘It’s the Transgender, LGBTQ’: Secret Recording Reveals Superintendent Telling School Librarians ‘Pull Books Off Shelves’

Swedish economist and former Atlantic Council Senior Fellow Anders Åslund criticized Brady.

“Shameful! What the US lacks most of all is transparency. It should start with tax returns and be followed by campaign financing, now often dark money. Politicians who advocate financial secrecy effectively advocate corruption.”

Georgetown Law professor Josh Chafetz said, “Hadn’t even thought of this — that would be great!”

“Congress has had this authority for a long time,” noted retired journalist Dan Murphy. “If legitimate concerns arise that a member of the Supreme Court is abusing the office to enrich him or herself, as there are in the case of Trump, getting those returns would also be a good thing.”

“And that’s a bad thing?” mocked U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA).

“Don’t tempt me with a good time…” mocked journalist Walker Bragman, a theme repeated by dozens of other Twitter users"

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

Yet another example of a right-wing judge usurping the power of elected officials to end run around democracy, and seize power undemocratically to ensure minority rule. This has been McConnel's and the Federalists Society's goal all along. They don't care if they can't obtain power via elections, they can impose their will on the majority via this undemocratic power grab.

Trump Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Christian right activist who thinks he is king
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/17/23512766/supreme-court-matthew-kacsmaryk-judge-trump-abortion-immigration-birth-control

#MagaCrazy
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#ChristianNationalism
#JudgesUsurpingLawmakersAuthority
#GOPHatesDemocracy

"On Thursday evening, a Trump-appointed judge named Matthew Kacsmaryk effectively ordered the Biden administration to reinstate a harsh, Trump-era border policy known as “Remain in Mexico,” which requires many immigrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their case is being processed. It’s the second time that Kacsmaryk has pulled this stunt — he did the same thing in 2021, and the Supreme Court overturned his decision last June.
...
His busy week, and months of earlier actions, show the havoc one rogue federal judge can create, especially in today’s judiciary.

The previous Thursday, Kacsmaryk became the first federal judge since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion to attack the right to contraception.

Kacsmaryk’s decision in Deanda v. Becerra targets Title X,...He claimed that the program is unlawful because it doesn’t require grant recipients to get parental permission before treating teenage patients. Lest there be any doubt, his opinion is riddled with obvious legal errors. Kacsmaryk didn’t even have jurisdiction to hear the Deanda case in the first place.

Meanwhile, in mid-November, Kacsmaryk handed down another decision in Neese v. Becerra, which held that a federal law prohibiting certain forms of discrimination by health providers does not protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination. His opinion cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which established that statutes prohibiting “sex” discrimination also ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, because “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates are holding their breath waiting for Kacsmaryk to decide Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, a case asking him to force the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone, a drug used to induce an enormous percentage of all abortions in the United States. Given Kacsmaryk’s record, it would be shocking if he does not issue such an order — regardless of whether he has any plausible legal basis for doing so.

Kacsmaryk is one of many Trump appointees to the federal bench who appears to have been chosen largely due to his unusually conservative political views. A former lawyer at a law firm affiliated with the religious right, he’s claimed that being transgender is a “mental disorder,” and that gay people are “disordered.” As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said during his confirmation fight, “Mr. Kacsmaryk has demonstrated a hostility to the LGBTQ bordering on paranoia.”

And Kacsmaryk is just as fixated on what straight people are doing in their bedrooms. In a 2015 article, Kacsmaryk denounced a so-called “Sexual Revolution” that began in the 1960s and 1970s, and which “sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.”

Yet, thanks to an obscure rule governing which federal judges are assigned to hear cases in Texas federal courts — 95 percent of civil cases filed in Amarillo, Texas’s federal courthouse are automatically assigned to Kacsmaryk — this prurient man is now one of the most powerful public officials in the United States. Any conservative interest group can find a federal policy they do not like, file a legal complaint in the Amarillo federal courthouse challenging that policy, and nearly guarantee that their case will be heard by Kacsmaryk.

Kacsmaryk’s opinions are embarrassingly poorly reasoned — including his latest Remain in Mexico one
Many of Kacsmaryk’s decisions are so poorly reasoned that they can be rebutted in just a couple of sentences.

His opinion in Neese, for example, concludes that a statute prohibiting discrimination “on the basis of sex” does not prohibit LGBTQ discrimination. But, again, the holding of Bostock was that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”