Simmering tensions between traditionalist Republican judges and MAGA judges are starting to boil over.
A federal court isĀ picking an unusual fightĀ with one of the federal judiciaryās governing bodies ā one with implications for literally all aspects of US policy.
In March, the Judicial Conference of the United States, one of the federal courtsā internal governing bodies, announced aĀ new policy intended to combat ājudge-shopping.āĀ Some federal courts effectively allow plaintiffs to choose their own judges, which has allowed many litigants withĀ dubiousĀ or evenĀ ridiculousĀ claims to obtain court orders blocking pretty much any federal policy that they find objectionable.
One court that allowed such judge-shopping, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, announced on Friday thatĀ it will defy the Judicial ConferenceĀ and refuse to implement the new policy. This defiance, if allowed to stand, would render the Judicial Conferenceās new policy virtually useless, as the Northern District of Texas is the locus of the nationās worst problem with judge-shopping.
Among other things, the fact that many right-wing plaintiffs can select Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to hear their lawsuits has turned this obscure Trump appointee to this Texas federal courtĀ into one of the most powerful public officials in the country.
Kacsmaryk is a former lawyer at a Christian right law firm with aĀ long record of hostilityĀ towardĀ LGBTQĀ rights,Ā abortion, andĀ even many forms of heterosexual sexuality. He is the judge whoĀ attempted to ban the abortion medication mifepristone. And, in his brief period on the bench, heās handed down a long line of orders implementing right-wingĀ policiesĀ onĀ birth control,Ā immigration, andĀ LGBTQ discrimination. He even backed aĀ ban on theater performances he finds objectionable.
District often used as a target for judge-shopping announces they wonāt follow the rules against judge-shopping.
Almost like there are some invisible incentives they may not want to give up.
Rubles
Because thereās a fundamental conflict between ruling for a āconservative interpretation of the lawā and a āmy party is always right and needs to retain controlā perspective?
Well the rist the MAGAts introduce is actually allowing laws to stand that should be stricken. Like the book banning, because the enemy will immediately turn around and add your precious bible to the list.
Everything is bigger in Texas, even the corruption!
"Congressional Republicans, including nearly the entire Senate GOP Conference, signed onto a Supreme Court brief in January backing former President Donald Trump when Colorado state officials tried> to prevent him from being on the ballot over his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection,āĀ Punchbowl NewsĀ reports.
āBut that same level of support from Hill Republicans for Trump hasnāt materialized on a separate and equally high-profile argument to the high court ā that Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution related to any official actions as president.ā
āIn fact, the deadline for submitting a brief in support of Trumpās position in the immunity case has already passed.ā
Not in the article, but maybe on point.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Among other things, the fact that many right-wing plaintiffs can select Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to hear their lawsuits has turned this obscure Trump appointee to this Texas federal court into one of the most powerful public officials in the country.
It remains to be seen how the broader judiciary ā and the Supreme Court in particular ā will react to the Northern District of Texasās insistence that anyone who wants to sabotage a Biden administration policy should be allowed to select Matthew Kacsmaryk as their judge.
And, no matter how the broader judiciary reacts in the short term, lawyers like Kacsmaryk could easily find themselves in charge of the entire court system if former President Donald Trump has the opportunity to appoint more of him to the federal bench.
As the Washington Postās Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer described Trumpās approach to the 2022 midterms, āhe made it a near-singular mission to defeat GOP lawmakers who voted for his impeachment and who publicly disputed his claims of election fraud.ā
And, in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Court sided with members of a notorious church who protested a fallen marineās funeral with signs featuring anti-gay slurs and the message āThank God for Dead Soldiers.ā
Similarly, when the Court heard oral arguments last February to decide whether to permanently block these laws, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all seemed to cling to the pre-Trump Republican position that the government should not regulate speech.
The original article contains 1,801 words, the summary contains 240 words. Saved 87%. Iām a bot and Iām open source!
