#partisanjudges — Public Fediverse posts

The "conservative" justices act like partisans because that is what they always have been. They are part of a long-standing right-wing plan to use the judiciary as an end-run around democracy to enact their preferred policies, which they can't achieve through elections.

The Supreme Court's reputation is shattered thanks to its conservative justices https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/12/supreme-courts-reputation-shattered-thanks-conservative-justices/

#PartisanJudges
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPVersionOfJustice
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy

"...Just to show you where their loyalties lie, Alito, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch showed up at a gala dinner in November held by the Federalist Society, the right-wing legal group that vetted Trump’s judicial appointees, where they received a long ovation for their ruling overturning abortion rights.

Such disregard for the appearance of neutrality is possible because the Supreme Court doesn’t have any ethical guidelines – literally. Unlike any other judicial body in the U.S., the Court relies upon the integrity of the justices to police itself.

Look at where that’s gotten us.

No wonder the public’s trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows. The conservative wing’s insistence on imposing its own view of society, even if that means overturning precedents, has made the Court seem like just another political player and not a group of legal giants. The attitude of Alito and company seems to be, “Who cares?” As long as they have the power, society can get lost.

As for the Court, it will take years to rebuild the reputation that the right’s disregard for basic ethics has destroyed. Meanwhile, you can count on the partying and praying to keep happening, despite the conflicts they may represent."

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 2: This is all part of the wealthy/corporate plot to control the government so they can't be restrained, regulated, fined, taxed, etc.. Oh, and they definitely want their serfs back!!

'Judicial supremacy': How the Supreme Court usurped the other two branches of government - Alternet.org https://www.alternet.org/judicial-supremacy-supreme-court-usurped/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#PartisanJudges
#WantTheirSerfsBack

"Another current Supreme Court case that worries Wehle is Moore v. Harper, which deals with partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and a far-right legal idea known as the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The ISL, in its most severe form, argues that only state legislatures have a right govern elections at the state level — not governors, not state supreme courts, not judges.

“The implications of Moore are even graver than those in Milligan,” Wehle warns. “The legislators are arguing that under the U.S. Constitution, only state legislatures or Congress can decide the rules governing federal elections — state courts and state constitutions are meaningless. This independent state legislature theory was repeatedly raised with no success by Trump and his supporters seeking to overturn the election in 2020.”

Wehle continues, “But what was unthinkable then — a ruling that takes elections away from voters by mandating as a matter of constitutional law that state legislatures have unfettered power to ultimately decide them — is very real now…. If the independent state legislature theory nonetheless carries the day, it would mean that a state legislature could violate the very state constitution that created it. Voters would, once again, be the losers at the Supreme Court — despite multiple laws designed to protect them.”

Wehle wraps up her article by arguing that today’s Supreme Court is more radical than conservative.

“Alas, the conservative justices on this Court have already shown their hand,” Wehle writes. “They don’t care about precedent, let alone intellectual integrity. As a result, Americans may be in for a rude awakening. Indeed, perhaps it’s time to retire the label ‘conservative’ when referring to the majority of this Court. Each term gives further evidence of its decidedly unconstrained unconservatism. And the future of our precious Constitution is in their hands.”"

Part 1 This is all part of the wealthy/corporate plot to control the government so they can't be restrained, regulated, fined, taxed, etc.. Oh, and they definitely want their serfs back!!

'Judicial supremacy': How the Supreme Court usurped the other two branches of government - Alternet.org https://www.alternet.org/judicial-supremacy-supreme-court-usurped/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#PartisanJudges
#WantTheirSerfsBack

"In 2023, there will be a lot of gridlock in Washington, D.C., with Republicans having a small majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while Democrats will still control the White House and the U.S. Senate. Democrats performed much better than expected in the 2022 midterms, losing the House but slightly increasing their narrow majority in the Senate and winning key gubernatorial races in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and other swing states.

But even if the United States had taken a hard-left turn in 2020 and 2022 — even if Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont were president and Democrats had large majorities in both branches of Congress going in 2023 — the country would still have its most radical-right Supreme Court in generations. And the High Court won’t be moving to the center, let alone the left, anyone soon. It’s entirely possible that all three of the Gen-X justices President Donald Trump appointed (Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch) will still be on the Court 30 years from now.

The Court’s far-right turn is the focus of articles published by the New York Times and the conservative website The Bulwark on December 19. In the Times piece, journalist Adam Liptak emphasizes that today’s Supreme Court wields more power than other branches of the federal government.

“The conventional critique of the Supreme Court these days is that it has lurched to the right and is out of step with the public on many issues,” Liptak explains. “That is true so far as it goes. But a burst of recent legal scholarship makes a deeper point, saying the current Court is distinctive in a different way: It has rapidly been accumulating power at the expense of every other part of the government.”

Liptak notes what Stanford University law professor Mark A. Lemley had to say about the High Court in an article published by the Harvard Law Review on November 20.

Lemley wrote, “The Court has not been favoring one branch of government over another, or favoring states over the federal government, or the rights of people over governments. Rather, it is withdrawing power from all of them at once…. It is a Court that is consolidating its power, systematically undercutting any branch of government, federal or state, that might threaten that power, while at the same time undercutting individual rights.”

Lemley’s article was headlined “The Imperial Supreme Court” — a characterization that Liptak doesn’t disagree with. And Liptak points out that according to Rebecca L. Brown and Lee Epstein of the University of Southern California (USC), the High Court “is establishing a position of judicial supremacy over the president and Congress.”

Liptak also quotes University of California, Berkeley law professor Tejas N. Narechania, who wrote, “The Roberts Court, more than any other Court in history, uses its docket-setting discretion to select cases that allow it to revisit and overrule precedent.”

In an article she wrote for The Bulwark, University of Baltimore law professor Kimberly Wehle stresses that the Roberts Court has been showing a total disregard for precedent. Discussing the case Merrill v. Milligan, Wehle points out that how the Court ruled in the past isn’t a major concern for this edition of the Court.

“After the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade last term,” Wehle writes, “it’s clear that the Court’s majority is not shy about overturning precedent, however entrenched it may be…. At issue in Merrill, which was argued on October 4, is whether Alabama’s newly redrawn congressional map illegally discriminates against Black voters under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). A three-judge lower-court panel, including two Trump appointees, agreed with the plaintiffs, deeming the Alabama map illegal and mandating the creation of a new one. If the Supreme Court sides with Alabama, it would mean another reversal of established precedent interpreting Section 2 of the VRA in a 1986 case called Thornburg v. Gingles. Even worse, it would be another serious gut-punch to Congress’ ability to pass laws remedying systemic discrimination, this time in voting.”

Freedom of religion for me but not thee. These crazy, rightwing judges and other partisans, want to be able to impose their religious dictates on the rest of us and they have come a long way toward making that happen already. Lets see what they do about this case, but it doesn't look good so far. Alito and Gorsuch are foot-soldiers for the reactionary, right wing catholic arm of the Christian nationalist movement.

'Venom': Experts shocked as Gorsuch accuses Colorado of forcing anti-LGBTQ baker into 're-education program'

https://www.alternet.org/gorsuch-2658835299/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanJudges
#ChristianNationalism
#RightWingCatholicCabal

"Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”"

How The Midterm Elections Unleashed The Supreme Court's Radical Majority - National Memo https://www.nationalmemo.com/how-the-midterm-elections-unleashed-the-supreme-court-s-radical-majority
#PartisanJudges
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#GOPPartisansCaptureJudiciary

"So forget what you learned in civics about checks and balances. The midterm election did work out better for Democrats than the polls predicted, but for the next two years the power over major issues of national consequence will rest with a conservative majority on the Court that is unchecked itself and bent on reducing other checks on arbitrary power. At least with their decision to overturn Roe, the Court’s majority awakened the public to the danger. But, except for a possible reversal of Obergefell, it will be harder to arouse that kind of response to many of the other critical turns to the right the Court may take. This is going to be a major challenge for both journalism and Democratic politics in the coming years."