New bit 'n chunk: DJT’s money troubles; An important USSC decision

Everyone is reporting that DJT is telling the world that he cannot raise the money he needs to meet a court-imposed $464 million bond obligation by a deadline next week. For example, ABC News reports: Trump faces ‘insurmountable difficulties’ in securing $464M bond in civil fraud case, his attorneys say -- Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered Trump to pay $355 million plus interest. Unfortunately, this is not a basis to feel some comfort or that he will finally face some significant justice. DJT knows how to subvert justice to protect himself. 

DJT has already indirectly told the world that if the courts do not back off, he will accept bribes in the normal course of business, including in governing if he gets back in power. He expressed his ‘open for corruption’ threat in terms of being vulnerable to courts forces him to be open to corruption to pay fines and allegedly corrupt performance as president to try to avoid court-ordered fines. Although DJT took bribes before when he was in office before, the bribery is going to be more worse from here on out. 

Another signal that DJT is going to accept bribes is his signaling that he is considering giving convicted felon and traitor Paul Manafort a major role in his re-election campaign. The traitor-felon Manafort is connected to Russian oligarchs who are connected to Putin, who his DJT’s role model and likely controller. CNN reports: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is in discussions to help with reelection effort -- Former President Donald Trump’s team is in discussions with Paul Manafort, his 2016 campaign chairman whom he later pardoned, to potentially help with the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, three sources familiar with the ongoing conversations told CNN.

The frightening truth is that DJT’s money trouble is our trouble too. But for better or worse, it is far better for us that he has this money trouble, than letting him off the hook for his crimes and treason. Either way, he will be corrupt. 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Slate reports about an important decision about the limits of government power:

Even the Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Fed Up 

With the Garbage Coming Out of the 5th Circuit

Murthy v. Missouri poses a question so asinine that to ask it is to answer it: Can government officials encourage social media companies to moderate certain content that they deem harmful—most importantly, disinformation about COVID-19 in the middle of the pandemic?

Yes, of course they can: The First Amendment does not gag public officials from urging Facebook or the Washington Post or anyone else to publish or not publish certain information, especially when it contains dangerous lies about a once-in-a-century pandemic that could exacerbate the crisis. The First Amendment bars government censorship, not government persuasion, and the Biden administration planted itself on the latter side of that bright line. At least six justices grasped this basic constitutional principle on Monday.  

Like so many Supreme Court cases these days, Murthy is built atop a heap of fake facts. 

The opinion he handed down on July 4, 2023, was a humiliating mess of contradictions, fabrications, and (ironically) misinformation. Doughty adopted the plaintiffs’ theory that the administration “coerced” social media companies into removing “conservative” speech about COVID, ....  

Doughty, it turns out, grievously butchered the record to reach his conclusion. An exhaustive analysis by Mike Masnick proves that Doughty consistently misrepresented testimony and other evidence in the record to construct a conspiracy theory with zero basis in reality. He distorted emails and other exchanges to make them look coercive when they were nothing of the sort, cherry-picking and rearranging quotations to put them in a censorious light. Yet the hard-right U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where law goes to die, affirmed Doughty’s conclusions and upheld much of his injunction (while narrowing it in part). That move sent the administration racing to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay, which it granted in October, over the dissents of Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas.

The decision is encouraging because three of the six authoritarians understood how damaging this would be if the 5th Circuit decision was upheld. As Slate says, the case was asinine right from the get go and the anti-government arguments should never have made it past the trial court.

This is deeply troubling because both the 5th Circuit appeals court and three of the six USSC judges (i) made clear their hate of government, (ii) displayed an authoritarian trait of disregarding or rejecting inconvenient facts, and (iii) displayed an authoritarian trait of fabricating facts and applying partisan biased reasoning to inconvenient facts. 

That said, it does not mean the other three TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) judges are not authoritarian. They are. But this case was so obviously wrong that they believed they had to side with the government on this. There are other, much more subtle ways to kill democratic government than this deranged 5th Circuit cannon blast. Apparently Roberts convinced Kavanaugh and Barrett of that. 

Also troubling is Slate calling the TTKP judges “conservative.” That is a major mistake. By now it is clear that all six are some form of still-evolving kleptocratic authoritarian monster, i.e., some combination of autocratic, plutocratic and fundamentalist Christian theocratic.

Book Review: Introduction to Legal Reasoning

 

Case law: the law as established by the outcome of former cases, sometimes called common law or judge made law.

Statutory law: written laws that express the will of the legislature, as distinguished from case law and constitutional law.

Constitutional law: the law as established by federal and state constitutions and intended to reflect the will of the drafters.

Context

This book explains the early origins of what has become the bitter modern liberal vs conservative dispute over what is constitutional and what isn't. The American legal tradition, American legal realism was that judges changed laws as society changed. The system worked very well, until conservatives began to understand in the 1950s and 1960s that American society was changing in ways they bitterly opposed.

Court decisions to require public school desegregation and to uphold civil liberties were seen as outright tyranny that had to be stopped at all costs. Those bitterly hated decisions were a reflection of the American realism legal tradition. In the 1970s and 1980s, the right invented terms like originalism and textualism to give their legal arguments (reflections of conservatism) and to begin to focus their attacks on the American realism tradition in the 1980s and 1990s. In essence, American legal realism is a direct threat to conservative political and social ideology. Conservative ideology is anti-democratic, authoritarian, hostile to civil liberties and the rule of law, except when it serves conservative ideological agendas.

Conservatives point to their invented originalism, textualism and so forth as accurately reflecting the will of the Founders to give gravitas to their arguments. The fundamental problem with that is that history makes very clear the Founders were locked in bitter disagreement over what is basically the same things that conservatives and liberals fight over today, e.g., big, strong vs small weak central government. The Founders never resolved their disagreements in their lifetimes. American legal realism reflected the social change of growing public acceptance of a big, strong central government. Conservatives now fight tooth, claw and fang to stop this social change. They rely heavily on dark free speech and anti-democratic tactics to wage this desperate war.

This book puts much of the modern left vs right fights in context. 

Book review

In his 1949 book, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, legal scholar and former US Attorney General, Edward H. Levy, describes his vision of the legal process, which is called American Legal Realism (ALR). His book begins with this opening paragraph:

“This is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal reasoning in the field of case law, and in the interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. The pretense is that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense has long been under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and ambiguities of words. It provides for the participation of the community in resolving the ambiguity by providing a forum for the discussion of policy in the gap of ambiguity. On serious controversial questions it makes it possible to take the first step in the direction of what otherwise would be forbidden ends. The mechanism is indispensable to peace in a community.”

Levy is making a point that (i) legal reasoning and decision-making is not a simple application of a law to the facts of a controversy, (ii) ambiguity in the language of laws and the US Constitution is unavoidable but necessary for civil society, and (iii) the law changes over time to accommodate social change. Those three points are central to ALR, which is a process of evolution of the law over time. Although there are differences among scholars about exactly what ALR is, it is generally sees legal reasoning as a process where judges usually, but not always, decide a case on nonlegal grounds and then justify or rationalize their decision by reference to legal doctrines and the language of the applicable law.

Realism vs. formalism: The ALR vision of legal reasoning stands in contrast to legal formalism. Formalism holds that the process is a judge first resorting to the law and then applying the facts of the case to arrive at a decision in a case. Formalism recognizes that many legal principles are needed to account for all the decisions judges make. The core belief is that despite the complexity, there is an underlying logic to the myriad legal principles. The principles are both logically straightforward and easily applied to each case. Clearly, the quoted paragraph rejects formalism as the mechanism that applies to how judges decide cases. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a prominent proponent of the branch of formalism called textualism.

Based on this reviewer’s professional experience with the law, judges decide on whatever process or mechanism they want when circumstances permit. That is particularly true for judges who are political ideologues and the issues at stake are core constitutional principles. Sometimes a law is not significantly ambiguous and the facts of the case make it all but necessary to decide on the basis of formalism. Most of the time, those cases settle out of court before the parties start formal in-court proceedings. Winners and losers in those cases are usually easy to spot, and going to court expends time and money. But for cases that do wind up being formally litigated, the process that ALR envisions is probably the process by which judges usually decide a case.

Levi recognized that if one ignores the easy cases, the distinctions between case law, statutory and constitutional cases decrease dramatically. That insight offered a different way to envision how the legal reasoning process actually operates.

Of the two opposing views, ALR is far better than formalism at accounting for the incremental changes in how laws are interpreted overt time. The changes tend to (i) accord with changing social norms, technology and the realities of how commerce is conducted, and (ii) the social impacts of changing technology and commerce. Levi is justified in asserting that “the mechanism is indispensable to peace in a community.”

A three-step process in four steps: Levi describe a three-step process of “reasoning from case to case” or “reasoning by example” by which the law evolves:

“The steps are these. Similarity is seen between cases; next the rule of law inherent in the first case is announced; then the rule of law is made applicable to the second case.”

But after that, as society, technology and commerce change, the rule of law can become obsolete and lead to absurd or unintended results. In cases where a rule of law is made without considering larger principles or unforeseeable circumstances, things that are very easy to do, if not necessarily inherent, the rule usually winds up being short-sighted in some way. That raises the need to refine or change the rule, sometimes to the point of it no longer being discernable in cases that arise years or decades later. In some cases, a rule of law simply fades into oblivion. For Levi, reasoning by analogy is the main way that this sort of flexibility in the law evolves and adapts to new circumstances.

In essence, the rejection, change or refinement of a rule of law amounts to a fourth step that can constitute a new rule of law, a refinement of the first rule, or a complete rejection of the first rule.

Statutory and constitutional ambiguity: As is apparent from the foregoing, some or a great deal of ambiguity in statutory laws and the constitution is a necessary component for ALR to work as it does. Levi paints a picture of the legislative process as necessarily an ambiguity-creating machine and judges apply legal reasoning to try to specify what a law’s language actually means in a given situation:

“We [judges] mean to accomplish what the legislature intended. . . . . The difficulty is that what the legislature intended is ambiguous. In a significant sense there is only a general intent which preserves as much ambiguity in the concept used as though it had been created by case law. . . . . For a legislature perhaps the pressures are such that a bill has to be passed dealing with a certain subject. But the precise effect of the bill is not something upon which the members have to reach agreement. . . . . Despite much gospel to the contrary, the legislature is not a fact-finding body. There is no mechanism, as there is with a court, to require the legislature to sift facts and to make a decision about specific situations. There need be no agreement about what the situation is. The members of the legislative body will be talking about different things; they cannot force each other to accept even a hypothetical set of facts. . . . . Moreover, from the standpoint of the individual member of the legislature there is reason to be deceptive. He must escape from pressures at home. . . . And if all this were not sufficient, it cannot be forgotten that to speak of legislative intent is to talk of group action, where much of the group may be ignorant or misinformed.”

Similarly, Levi paints a written constitution as another source of ambiguity:

“In addition to the power to hold legislative acts invalid, a written constitution confers another and perhaps as great a power. It is the power to disregard prior cases. . . . . The problem of stare decisis [legal precedent] where a constitution is involved is therefore an entirely different matter from that in case law or legislation. This is often overlooked when the court is condemned for its change of mind. A change of mind from time to time is inevitable when there is a written constitution. There can be no authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution in its general provisions embodies the conflicting ideals of the community. Who is to say what these ideals mean in any definite way? Certainly not the framers, for they did their work when the words were put down. The words are ambiguous. Nor can it be the Court, for the Court cannot bind itself in this manner; an appeal can always be made back to the Constitution. Moreover if it is said that the intent of the framers ought to control, there is no mechanism for any final determination of their intent. . . . . The major words written in the document are too ambiguous; the ideals are too conflicting, and no interpretation can be decisive.”

Obviously, for formalists, the ALR vision of the Constitution is flawed. For those people, the Founder’s intent can clearly be found by applying formalist analytical techniques, such as the textualism that Scalia and others advocate. Despite that, Levi is clearly correct to say that the US Constitution is often ambiguous and there is no mechanism to definitively decide. On this point, formalism gets it wrong. And therein lies one of the bases for difference of opinion that is tearing American society apart today.

If one looks at the disputes the Founders never resolved among themselves in their lifetimes, one can see the origins of both ALR and formalism, both of which still compete for supremacy in both the law and in politics. In my opinion, ALR is better suited to modern American society and the economic and technological challenges this country faces. Given the reality that the legislative process is slow and driven more by re-election than courageous governance, there seems to be no workable pro-democracy choice but to resort to some form of realism or pragmatism. 

Previously posted 3/19/20, 8/17/19 & 12/26/18

The never-ending national/international nightmare…

 

Okay, I got a whopper for you this morning. 😮

As was to be expected, so far all legal cases involving one Donald J. Trump are getting delayed, thus denying the public’s right to a speedy trial (i.e., “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook,” a la Nixon).  Trump’s desire to delay, delay, delay any and all prosecutions is his go-to move, his modus operandi, his “whatever it takes” maneuvers (ain’t no mountain high enough, ain’t no valley low enough…). 

As a result, we’ve got quite the clown show going.  Let’s review:

- A critical D.C. case before the SCOTUS on whether or not a U.S. President has total immunity against all acts taken, including… wait for it… fomenting an insurrection (there’s an eye-roller for ya).

- A Georgia flub-up (appearance of wrongdoing) with a DA endangering Trump’s (et. al.) RICO case with her bad judgment; an affair with the lead prosecutor whom she appointed to handle the case.  There’s another “duh” moment.

- A Manhattan DA/DoJ/SDNY/who the hell knows? screw-up with a last minute “documents dump” on Trump’s attorneys (tens of thousands of items), causing further delay in the “hush money”/“falsifying business records” case.  That was a “Coulda hada V8” forehead slap moment for me, when I heard about it. (Looks like we’re in a Keystone Kops slapstick sitcom.)  For crying out loud!  O.J., eat your heart out!  You are not alone!  Incompetence abounds!

- An inexperienced DJT-appointed Florida judge, whose rulings have already been twice reversed by the 11th Circuit Appeals Court, all of whom were republican appointees.  A Florida judge who continues to give the Trump team every benefit of every doubt on his “stealing” and “concealing” highly classified documents, feeding right into DJT’s delay tactics.

- An USAG who lets a special counsel, Robert Hur, get away with smearing Joe Biden, even though it was, and still is to this day, a nothingburger, tainting the general public's opinion of Biden with falsehoods in favor of DJT, and thus giving Trump even more advantage with his low-info cult voters.

- Appeals after appeals after appeals, ad infinitum, still winding their way through the various backlogged courts.

And this is all just off the top of my head!  What am I NOT thinking of?  There are so many Trump lawsuits pending that it’s practically impossible for us regular folks to keep them all straight.  So, if I got anything wrong here, please feel free to correct me.

Yes, seemingly for better or for worse, the U.S. legal system is one contorted (spaghettified) system.  If you want something, some precedent, you will find it somewhere out there in the vast smorgasbord of legality, and figure out a way to work it into the picture for your own benefit.  There’s something for everyone!  “How may we (the legal system) help you?”

*   *   *   *

Most pundits and legal minds are saying there is a “slim to none” chance that any legal trial outcomes will take place before the November general election. I’m starting to really believe that myself.  And I’m wondering if, in the long run, that’s a good thing.  I wonder what you think.

So, let’s speculate on which is better for achieving justice.  I’m just spitballing here, and in my usual overly-dramatic way [i.e., I outlined it].  Consider these two (rough draft) scenarios I knocked out: 

Scenario I.

At least one DJT trial takes place BEFORE the November election. 

Possibilities:

1. Trump is found guilty.

1. A guilty finding may catapult Trump into national martyrdom.  

2. Trump plays the sympathy card on the voting public and in the media.  Media gives him unending free airtime.  This happens in between when he’s found guilty but before he has to report to jail.  Or, even after he has to report to jail, though his name remains on all ballots (thank you SCOTUS!) 

1. The sympathy card catapults him into being re-elected.  Or, it doesn’t work.

2. The sympathy card fails and he gets scorn from everyone, including his fellow Republicans.  He’s now finally a goner.

3. 
   

2. Trump is found not guilty.

1. His image is bolstered in the population at large.  

2. He gets a bump in the polls resulting in a win in the November election.

3. All hell breaks loose, as it did before. But now a dictator is in total charge.

3.  Hung jury (go back three spaces! Do not pass GO.  Do not collect even $200 worth of justice). 😭

Scenario II.

No DJT trials take place until AFTER the November election.

Possibilities:

1. Trump wins the November election.  

1. He dismisses all federal cases against him  

1. He will still have to find a way to deal with state cases, and you better believe he will.  They will miraculously “go away.”

2. 
   

2. Trump loses the November election. 

1. That means the chances that he must eventually stand multiple trials is very high 

1. There is a good likelihood that he will be convicted on something (of the current 88 counts).

2. 
   

2. Societal/civil unrest.  

1. Will it or will it not happen?  (It did before.)

2. 
   

Question/task:

• Help me think through the various possibilities.  Fill in any missing pieces.  

• Do you think it is better or worse for any DJT trials to take place before the November election?  Give your analysis as I did.

Right now I’m talking about “trials or no trials.”  But if you want to veer off into other scenarios go ahead.   Many variables and possibilities are in play. 

• Is there a Scenario III., IV., V… (e.g. stroke, heart attack, assassination, resignation, illnesses, fleeing the country, some unexpected “October surprise,” nuclear holocaust, armageddon, other)?  Speculate on what this November will look like.  Just (IYO) In Your Opinion.

(by PrimalSoup)

News bit: Breyer critiques the USSC

A NYT article, Justice Breyer, Off the Bench, Sounds an Alarm Over the Supreme Court’s Direction, includes these comments:

“Something important is going on,” he said. The court has taken a wrong turn, he said, and it is not too late to turn back.

The book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,” will be published on March 26, the day the Supreme Court hears its next major abortion case, on access to pills used to terminate pregnancies.

Textualism is a way of interpreting statutes that focuses on their words, leading to decisions that turn on grammar and punctuation. Originalism seeks to interpret the Constitution as it was understood at the time it was adopted, even though, Justice Breyer said in the interview, “half the country wasn’t represented in the political process that led to the document.”

There are three large problems with originalism, he wrote in the book.

“First, it requires judges to be historians — a role for which they may not be qualified — constantly searching historical sources for the ‘answer’ where there often isn’t one there,” he wrote. “Second, it leaves no room for judges to consider the practical consequences of the constitutional rules they propound. And third, it does not take into account the ways in which our values as a society evolve over time as we learn from the mistakes of our past.”

Justice Breyer did not accuse the justices who use those methods of being political in the partisan sense or of acting in bad faith. But he said their approach represented an abdication of the judicial role, one in which they ought to consider a problem from every angle.

The weakness inherent in Breyer’s democratic mindset is painfully obvious in the last quoted paragraph. His logic is flawed. Specifically, it is now clear that what he calls an abdication of the judicial role, is blatantly partisan. The decisions of the six radical authoritarians make that undeniable. They are not principled decisions. They are goal-driven. Breyer still cannot see the authoritarian threat. He just does not get it.

Interestingly, Breyer’s comment that originalism not take into account the ways in which social values evolve invokes American Legal Realism (ALR). Once I became aware of ALR, my understanding of why radical right authoritarianism had to come up with crackpot legal theories like originalism and textualism. Simply put, those crackpot theories are far more compatible with outcome-driven authoritarianism than with democracy in complex modern societies.

The authoritarian threat: Tactics in defense of dark free speech

A key weapon that authoritarianism has against democracy and civil liberties is DFS (dark free speech). DFS includes lies, deceit, slanders, unwarranted opacity, irrational emotional manipulation, crackpottery including idiotic conspiracy theories and flawed logic, etc. A DFS tactic that has become a lot more common since the rise of DJT is to single out and attack facts, true truths and sound reasoning HS or honest speech) that are inconvenient, threatening or otherwise unwanted to the authoritarian mindset and wealth and power agenda. The attacks usually claim that the HS, or efforts to defend it, is the opposite or different than actual reality.

A long NYT article reports about an example of the discouraging success the authoritarians are having in defending DFS and the difficulty of pro-democracy forces to defend HS (full article not behind paywall):

How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation

Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online

In the wake of the riot on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, a groundswell built in Washington to rein in the onslaught of lies that had fueled the assault on the peaceful transfer of power.

Social media companies suspended Donald J. Trump, then the president, and many of his allies from the platforms they had used to spread misinformation about his defeat and whip up the attempt to overturn it. The Biden administration, Democrats in Congress and even some Republicans sought to do more to hold the companies accountable. Academic researchers wrestled with how to strengthen efforts to monitor false posts.

Mr. Trump and his allies embarked instead on a counteroffensive, a coordinated effort to block what they viewed as a dangerous effort to censor conservatives.

They have unquestionably prevailed.

Waged in the courts, in Congress and in the seething precincts of the internet, that effort has eviscerated attempts to shield elections from disinformation in the social media era. It tapped into — and then, critics say, twisted — the fierce debate over free speech and the government’s role in policing content.

Projects that were once bipartisan, including one started by the Trump administration, have been recast as deep-state conspiracies to rig elections. Facing legal and political blowback, the Biden administration has largely abandoned moves that might be construed as stifling political speech.

While little noticed by most Americans, the effort has helped cut a path for Mr. Trump’s attempt to recapture the presidency. Disinformation about elections is once again coursing through news feeds, aiding Mr. Trump as he fuels his comeback with falsehoods about the 2020 election.

“The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed, and it must happen immediately,” he thundered at the start of his 2024 campaign.

The counteroffensive was led by former Trump aides and allies who had also pushed to overturn the 2020 election. They include Stephen Miller, the White House policy adviser; the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both Republicans; and lawmakers in Congress like Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, who since last year has led a House subcommittee to investigate what it calls “the weaponization of government.”

Those involved draw financial support from conservative donors who have backed groups that promoted lies about voting in 2020. They have worked alongside an eclectic cast of characters, including Elon Musk, the billionaire who bought Twitter and vowed to make it a bastion of free speech, and Mike Benz, a former Trump administration official who previously produced content for a social media account that trafficked in posts about “white ethnic displacement.” (More recently, Mr. Benz originated the false assertion that Taylor Swift was a “psychological operation” asset for the Pentagon.)

Three years after Mr. Trump’s posts about rigged voting machines and stuffed ballot boxes went viral, he and his allies have achieved a stunning reversal of online fortune. Social media platforms now provide fewer checks against the intentional spread of lies about elections.

“The people that benefit from the spread of disinformation have effectively silenced many of the people that would try to call them out,” said Kate Starbird, a professor at the University of Washington whose research on disinformation made her a target of the effort.

That work has led to some of the most important First Amendment cases of the internet age, including one to be argued on Monday at the Supreme Court. That lawsuit, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, accuses federal officials of colluding with or coercing the platforms to censor content critical of the government. The court’s decision, expected by June, could curtail the government’s latitude in monitoring content online.

The arguments strike at the heart of an unsettled question in modern American political life: In a world of unlimited online communications, in which anyone can reach huge numbers of people with unverified and false information, where is the line between protecting democracy and trampling on the right to free speech?

Even before the court rules, Mr. Trump’s allies have succeeded in paralyzing the Biden administration and the network of researchers who monitor disinformation.

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department continue to monitor foreign disinformation, but the government has suspended virtually all cooperation with the social media platforms to address posts that originate in the United States.

“There’s just a chilling effect on all of this,” said Nina Jankowicz, a researcher who in 2022 briefly served as the executive director of a short-lived D.H.S. advisory board on disinformation. “Nobody wants to be caught up in it.”

The NYT article continues at length. 

I post this for a couple of reasons. First, this information reinforces my long-standing belief that DFS is the single most potent and successful weapon that the forces of American anti-democratic authoritarianism have in destroying democracy and civil liberties. When defense of HS is attacked as censorship of free speech, the attack defends DFS and authoritarianism. It is a brilliant and so far effective strategy to kill American democracy and our civil liberties.

Second, this highlights the power that DFS has to poison minds and create a false reality. DFS is truly a potent weapon. It is a democracy killer. That is why authoritarian extremists attack defense of HS as evil censorship, when in fact it is the opposite. 

Reigning in rogue MAGA judges?

The WaPo reports: 

Judges, GOP lawmakers slam new policy that limits ‘judge shopping’

Federal judiciary officials announced Tuesday that cases with broad ramifications should be assigned randomly

Conservative judges and senior Republican lawmakers are pushing back against a newly announced policy that would require assigning judges at random in civil cases that have statewide or national implications, saying the action conflicts with federal law.

In letters sent to about a dozen chief judges across the country, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — joined by Republican Sens. John Cornyn (Tex.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — urged the judges to continue their current case assignment practices, noting: “Judicial Conference policy is not legislation.”

They were responding to an announcement Tuesday by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts. Judicial Conference officials have not yet released their new policy to the public, and a spokesman declined to comment when asked whether the conference has the authority to make the change.

On Tuesday, the conference said cases with statewide or national implications can no longer be automatically filed in single-judge divisions and assigned to the judges who preside there. Such divisions exist in rural parts of the country where courthouses are spaced very far apart.  

Officials said they were trying to address widespread concerns about “judge shopping” — or filing a lawsuit in a courthouse where the lone judge is known or suspected to be sympathetic to a particular cause.

This just adds to the mountain of evidence of the bitter authoritarian intent, moral rot and bad faith that controls and drives the Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party (formerly the GOP). Any pro-rule of law person would want lawsuits assigned and judged in a way that is fair. 

Authoritarians want their lawsuits assigned in ways that advance anti-democratic authoritarianism and corruption. The best way to do that is to do judge shopping and file cases where the judge is an unprincipled authoritarian.

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Slate writes about the same proposed anti-judge shopping rule:

John Roberts Just Dropped the Hammer on Rogue, 

Lawless Trump Judges

For more than a decade, conservative plaintiffs have been gaming the judiciary by filing lawsuits before a hard-right judge who’s guaranteed to rule in their favor. Worse, a handful of Republican-appointed judges have made a habit of issuing sweeping decisions that apply nationwide—hobbling the federal government, short-circuiting the democratic process, and transferring inconceivable amounts of power into the hands of a few unelected jurists. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which makes policy for the federal courts, finally struck a blow against this cynical gamesmanship on Tuesday, announcing a new rule to restore the random assignment of cases and close the loophole that lets plaintiffs hand-pick their judges.

Dahlia Lithwick: It’s always hard for me to think that anything the Judicial Conference does is a big piece of news, but they did announce a new policy that sets out to curb judge-shopping. It’s the Conference trying to say: “Hey, you can’t just go to the casino that is Amarillo, Texas, and get Matthew Kacsmaryk every time you file a case.”

Mark Joseph Stern: We can glean that under this rule, when somebody files a lawsuit in federal district court that challenges some kind of federal policy—specifically, if it seeks a nationwide injunction or other sweeping relief—it must be randomly assigned to any judge in that district. The lawsuit cannot simply be glued onto the one judge who happens to sit in the division of the district where the plaintiffs strategically filed to prevail in their case.

As you suggested, this is the Matthew Kacsmaryk fix. Kacsmaryk is the guy who sits in a one-judge division in Amarillo, Texas, who will do whatever anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant plaintiffs ask him to do. The state of Texas goes back into his courthouse over and over again to get sweeping injunctions. The same thing happens with a handful of other Trump-appointed judges in Texas and Louisiana.

Chief Justice John Roberts brought up this problem in one of his annual reports, and now he has dropped the hammer. He’s the head of the Judicial Conference, and one of the other most prominent members is Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sutton is a very Roberts-ian figure who has complained bitterly, and I think correctly, about the scourge of nationwide injunctions. And now they’ve sort of shivved this entire scheme. Their message to these out-of-control district judges seems to be: “It’s over. You can’t keep the grift up. We’re patching this workaround.”

Judge Sutton, talking about this new rule, said: “I actually think the story is about national injunctions. That’s been a new development, really in the last 10 years and maybe the last two or three administrations, where that has become a thing.” I always love when a judge runs out of words and just says “a thing.” But I think it’s important to understand that this policy doesn’t actually stop a single-judge division from issuing a nationwide injunction. It just makes it harder. It sends cases through the spinner to avoid a case going directly to someone like Kacsmaryk. But cases will still end up being randomly assigned to Kacsmaryk.

Yes. It’s alarming that if a case is randomly assigned to Kacsmaryk, he can still work his mischief. He clearly has no hesitation to do whatever his client-plaintiffs want him to do in their ongoing collusion. So the ultimate solution has to be an end to this trend of single judges purporting to seize control of the law and make it whatever they want because they got 51 votes in the Senate and they have a God complex and they’ve decided that they’re the King of America.

Even Republican politicians are getting in on the bashing of the poor Judicial Conference.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell himself, from the floor of the Senate, delivered a screed against this policy, calling it an “unforced error” and also encouraging district courts to defy the Judicial Conference’s authority and ignore the new policy. McConnell actually sent a letter to the chief judge of every district court in the country, co-signed by GOP Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, encouraging them to disregard the policy, basically saying it’s illegal. So we’re seeing Republicans telling courts to defy the chief justice of the United States and his ultimate authority as head of the entire Article III judiciary. We might see an intra-war branch within Article III between judges who accept the policy and judges who don’t.

The proposed new rule,

pages 1-2 of 6