Columns, Courts, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

The Death of Irony: How A Judge’s Attack On Judicial Bias Backfired

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent criticism of the Roberts Court by a federal district judge. The law review article makes a stronger case for critics who view some judges are part of a deep bench movement against Trump. I do not see that pattern but I do view Judge Lynn Adelman as well outside of the navigational beacons for public commentary by federal judges.

Here is the column:

In a controversial law review article, District Court Judge Lynn Adelman denounced what he sees as raw ideological bias on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Adelman makes a better case of bias against himself than he does Chief Justice John Roberts. He unloads on Roberts as, essentially, a dishonest partisan hack. He declares the pledge by Roberts to “call the balls and strikes” a “masterpiece of disingenuousness.” Adelman attacks the five conservative justices as that “hard right majority” that has now been “actively participating in undermining American democracy.”

Conversely, the voting bloc of four liberal justices on the Supreme Court appears to be a masterpiece of righteousness to Adelman. He just cannot accept that the conservative majority holds opposing but principled views on issues ranging from immigration to campaign finance to voting rights. Instead, Adelman accuses the conservative majority of diminishing the rights of “ordinary Americans” while responding “only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.”

His article takes irony to a level of virtual satire. While Adelman chastises the Supreme Court for being “anything but passive,” he has been anything but passive in expressing political and ideological views. Such comments can conflict with the spirit of the canons of judicial ethics. The first canon requires judges to uphold and promote the “impartiality of the judiciary” and to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” The third canon requires judges to conduct “personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.” These rules include warnings not to engage in any conduct that is “inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.”

Because of these ethical principles, judges usually are highly restrained in their public comments, particularly about political or ideological matters. When I have served on panels with sitting federal judges, they often balk at even discussing the scope of constitutional rights out of concern for these canons. Federal judges are expected to speak through opinions in court decisions rather than in editorials or law review articles.

Adelman has had his differences with the Supreme Court over his views, which often seem in defiance of controlling precedent. He ruled in 2014 that a Wisconsin voter identification law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, had held in 2008 that an Indiana law with key similarities was constitutional. But that did not deter Adelman, who declared the Supreme Court decision in William Crawford versus Marion County Election Board was not controlling. Furthermore, a unanimous Seventh Circuit disagreed and found a key finding by Adelman was identical to the one that was rejected by the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, appellate courts can correct such errors. Public comments are more difficult to address, since federal jurists hold life tenure. I have been a critic of justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Antonin Scalia for repeatedly violating this tradition. Yet justices often note that they are not subject to the same rules as lower court judges and that the ethical canons are merely advisory for those on the highest court.

Adelman has no such claim of exemption but has long acted as if he did. This is not his first departure from judicial tradition. In 2017, he authored a law review article that excoriated Republican legislators and at the time Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for conservative efforts to “to undo” the standing “commitment to transparency” in the state and other political controversies. As a federal judge based in Wisconsin, the title he uses in these articles, such laws will come before him in any challenges.

Adelman continued his attack in a law review article a year later, declaring that since the era of Chief Justice Earl Warren, “conservatives have waged a sustained attack on the idea that lawsuits can be a constructive means of vindicating constitutional rights.” Even if one agrees with such views, it is not something one expects from a federal judge who must hear cases involving all litigants across the entire political spectrum. Only last year, Adelman wrote a law review article about democracy that denounced the Supreme Court decision on the interpretation of the bribery statute as a further “conservative” effort to roll back federal corruption laws.

As I wrote long ago, Donald Trump seems to have a knack for bringing out the worst in people, a technique that has paid off for him. When he leveled unrelenting and unfair attacks on the media, some journalists proceeded to fulfill that stereotype with what is openly biased hostile reporting. The same appears true with judges such as Adelman, who are undermining the judiciary with screeds against conservatives on the Supreme Court and in Congress. Once untethered from any notion of judicial restraint, Adelman vents about how Republicans remind him of all “those fervent defenders of slavery who pushed the South into the Civil War.”

In the current political distemper, such departures from judicial decorum are celebrated. The liberal group Demand Justice has asked the House to call Adelman to testify. Its chief counsel, Christopher Kang, saw nothing wrong in a judge denouncing what he described as a judiciary favoring corporations and Republicans. He sees no irony in demanding a hearing to allow Adelman to attack conservatives and Republicans to show the “increasingly partisan” and “biased nature” of the court system.

Notably, Demand Action is one of the organizations cited by conservatives as a liberal political action committee and source of “dark money” against conservative nominees, including millions reportedly spent opposing the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Senators Richard Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, and Mazie Hirono have now demanded that the administration turn over evidence of conservative support of judicial nominations through groups like the Federalist Society but not of liberal groups that spend millions against such efforts.

It is the death of irony in our society in this day and age. A federal judge attacks conservatives while denouncing partisanship and is celebrated as an oracle of judicial integrity. We seem to have transcended such quaint notions of hypocrisy or duplicity and become addicted to rage on every level in every form. For his part, Adelman is undeterred and responded to critics by simply saying, “What I said is right. I think it needed to be said.” Perhaps it did, but not by him or any other sitting federal judge.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

62 thoughts on “The Death of Irony: How A Judge’s Attack On Judicial Bias Backfired”

  1. Fearing Trump Might Lose, McConnell Invites Old Conservative Judges To Retire

    Running out of federal court vacancies to fill, Senate Republicans have been quietly making overtures to sitting Republican-nominated judges who are eligible to retire to urge them to step aside so they can be replaced while the party still holds the Senate and the White House.

    Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has used his position as majority leader to build a judicial confirmation juggernaut for President Trump over the past three years, has been personally reaching out to judges to sound them out on their plans and assure them that they would have a worthy successor if they gave up their seats soon, according to multiple people with knowledge of his actions.

    It was not known how many judges were contacted or which of them Mr. McConnell had spoken to directly. One of his Republican colleagues said others had also initiated outreach in an effort to heighten awareness among judges nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush that making the change now would be advantageous.

    The overt effort by Republicans to create vacancies reflects a realization that Mr. Trump could lose the presidency, or that Republicans could lose the Senate majority and deprive Mr. Trump of his partner on judicial confirmations even if he did gain a second term.

    Edited From: “McConnell Has A Request For Veteran Federal Judges: Please Quit”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. good strategy, especially if it gets rid of idiots like this guy Adelman, whose caseload must be light leaving him time to rant in law review articles. Not impartial and of course the liberals embrace that on their side while bitching about it on the other. Not surprised at all. Double Standards abound when you’re a liberal. Just another instance brought to light in time for the election.

      1. Bob – Speaking of double standards, does that mean you’ll be fine with a Democratic senate stonewalling GOP SC seat appointments? How about refusing to hear witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial. Both of these stunts were pulled off by the GOP FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN OUR 200 YEAR + HISTORY. How about declaring an emergency to do an end around avoidance of the Congress’s power of the purse? You OK with that as precedent?

        1. btb:

          “Speaking of double standards, does that mean you’ll be fine with a Democratic senate stonewalling GOP SC seat appointments? How about refusing to hear witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial. Both of these stunts were pulled off by the GOP FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN OUR 200 YEAR + HISTORY.”
          ***************************
          YOU’RE NOT READING AGAIN, Gainesville. Here and from this very blog:

          “In 1881, Hayes nominated Matthews for the Supreme Court but his close association was viewed as cronyism. Like Merritt Garland, the Senate never acted on the nomination. However, Matthews was then nominated again by James Garfield — leading to his narrow margin of confirmation.”

          https://jonathanturley.org/2018/10/07/a-bill-comes-due-reids-folly-becomes-the-democrats-nightmare/

          Do you enjoy being perpetually wrong?

          1. Mespo’s ankle biting lacks context:

            Hayes nominated Matthews on Jan 26, 1881. Haye’s term as president ended on March 4, 1881, or 5 weeks later and was ignored not on ideaological grounds but because of the timing and Matthews reputation as a Hayes crony.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Matthews_(Supreme_Court_justice)

            The Senate has never before in our 200 + history stonewalled a presidential SC nomination. You can count on it as a regular practice in coming years, and/or SC packing.

            When you lower the bar, all the animals get out.

            1. btb:

              You’re just flat wrong again that it was unprecdented. Kind of a habit for the hysterical categorical screamer that is btb.

  2. An example of a successful state owned company is Vattenfall, wholly owned by the Swedish government.

  3. Hey Jonathan how can you defend a federal judge for bribery and attack a jurist for asserting his First Amendment rights We thought yo-yo were a First Amendment absolutist Far from being a principled lot we have Thomas and Kavanaugh as sex offenders and Alito as a political hack Of the right wingers only Gorsuch is honorable

  5. “…raw ideological bias on the Supreme Court.”

    – District Court Judge Lynn Adelman
    _____________________________

    That “…raw ideological bias…” is pure communism as central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering. The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional. Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    The singular American failure since Lincoln’s irrefutably unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” has been the Supreme Court; most recently under Roberts. Chief Justice John Roberts impeached himself long ago by supporting the ACA. As an example, Obamacare is not “…general Welfare…” and is distinctly specific or individual welfare. The Constitution provides Congress the power to tax for “…general Welfare.” Congress may not tax for specific or individual welfare or charity, and Obamacare is unconstitutional. Further, Chief Justice John Roberts corruptly commingled the definitions of the words “state” and “federal” to fraudulently approve the unconstitutional “exchanges” which are critical to Obamacare. Additionally, Congress may regulate only the value of money, the flow of commerce among jurisdictions and land and naval Forces, per Article 1, Section 8. The 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute. Congress cannot claim or exercise dominion over the private property of individuals. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and Chief Justice John Roberts knows it well. Chief Justice Roberts, when do the American people get their rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities back from the Supreme Court?

    Chief Justice, there are no two ways about the facts, the truth and the Constitution. People who speak the English language do not need an interpreter. Chief Justice John Roberts and the SCOTUS have egregiously failed in their duty to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution as considered by Alexander Hamilton.

    To wit,

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1. I too felt the ACA was unconstitutional on at least four, possibly five grounds, the mandate itself simply the most obvious. But we should not overlook the fact that it was also unconstitutionally enacted through what appeared to be improper and rather twisted application of budget reconciliation.

      That said, I think Roberts has forever tainted his legacy.

      1. Obamacare should have never made it into Congress, much less out. Congress should have known that the ACA would be struck down immediately by a constitutional SCOTUS. It didn’t. Congress had no fear of glaring unconstitutionality. Congress knows what the SCOTUS will allow it to get away with. Congress knows well the subversion and treason; the communist leanings of the SCOTUS. It’s a continuum. Secession was fully licit and constitutional in 1861 (no nation in history ever ended slavery by war; undeclared war to boot) and suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional in a condition of secession not rebellion. Lincoln should have gone to prison for his well-known tyranny and slavery should have been terminated through the exercise of freedom and free enterprise including advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.

        The SCOTUS is the voice of; the speaker for the literal Constitution. The SCOTUS since Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” must have been speaking Oromo.

  7. the only cure for this is 4 more years of Trump.

    Adelman will have to work as a CNN contributor to remain irrelevant and ridiculous. Otherwise who would care he has committed a career limiting move?

  8. Robert’s Failed To Call Balls And Strikes

    Professor Turley indignantly criticizes Judge Adelman for questioning Robert’s Impeachment Trial pledge:

    “He unloads on Roberts as, essentially, a dishonest partisan hack. He declares the pledge by Roberts to “call the balls and strikes” a “masterpiece of disingenuousness.”

    I agree.. with Judge Adelman!!  Robert’s made no genuine effort to ‘call balls and strikes’.  

    At a moment in the impeachment trial that might have been pivotal, Democrats asked ‘who’ was paying the salary and expenses of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.  Guiliani, as we know, traveled to Ukraine with dubious associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman in efforts to undermine American Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.  Guiliani was also trying to uncover evidence to incriminate the Bidens.

    Therefore the question of ‘who’ was paying Guiliani’s salary and expenses was highly valid in the context of impeachment.  Yet Jay Sekulow, responding for the defense, simply denounced the question as outrageous and refused to provide any explanation regarding the funders of Guiliani’s compensation.

    Had John Robert’s really been ‘calling balls and strikes’, he would have intervened at that moment and ordered Trump’s defense to provide an answer regarding Guiliani’s compensation.

    Yet Robert’s allowed Trump’s defense to just blow off the question like it had no relevance whatsoever.  Consequently the American people still don’t ‘who’ funded Guiliani’s activities.  Therefore a vital piece of information was never entered on record.

    Had Americans learned that Trump himself was funding Guiliani, or billionaire Republican donors, that information could have greatly affected impressions of the trial.  But because John Robert’s played an only passive role, a potentially critical moment was lost.

    Seth Warner

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/30/trump-lawyer-jay-sekulow-really-doesnt-want-talk-about-whos-paying-rudy-giuliani/

    1. Again, Peter, the function of presiding over a legislative body (which the Chief Justice does as the Vice President is an interested party) is not analogous to an ordinary trial court. See Wm. Rehnquist: “I did nothing, and I did it very well”.

      1. Wrong, Absurd!  The public had/has a strong interest in knowing who funded Guiliani’s activities.  It’s not like Robert’s would have compromised his position by ordering Trump’s team to answer that question.  But Roberts sensed that an answer would have been detrimental to Trump.  

        1. Anonymous, Roberts also allowed Cippilone to blatantly and demonstrably lie in his beginning statement when he claimed Republicans were not allowed to attend or otherwise participate in the SCIF hearings. Of course they had the exact same access as Democratic Committee members.

          1. Why would you have the presiding officer evaluating evidence? (Even if you weren’t making a false accusation yourself?).

            2. The “evidence” presented by Cippilone went to the impeachment process itself and was known to be false by every reasonably informed person in the House that day. One assume Roberts knew it was false or he’s an idiot. No one thinks he’s an idiot.

          2. Thanks, Book, I forgot about that one. We might have had a much different impeachment outcome had Robert’s really ‘called balls and strikes’.

          3. btb:
            Anonymous, Roberts also allowed Cippilone to blatantly and demonstrably lie in his beginning statement when he claimed Republicans were not allowed to attend or otherwise participate in the SCIF hearings. ”
            **********************

            I count that as Big Lie repeat number 615. Keep going. Some blatant idiot might believe it.

            The reason Gaetz and other Repubs had to barge into the SCIF during the deps was obviously because they were in there already, right? Do you prune your nose?

            1. Just saw this. If Gaetz was a member of the committee he had the same rights a Democratic members to enter the SCIF. If he wasn’t he was barred as where democrats not members of the committee.

              He stormed it to pull of a political stunt for rubes like you.

        2. The public had/has a strong interest in knowing who funded Guiliani’s activities.

          Chips, the public is interested in a great many things. What do you suppose should guide how the government prioritizes those interests?

            1. Damn Chips, it’s quite pathetic you are triggered to recall being struck by smelly fat guys after being asked a basic civics question. Seek help.

    2. Washington Post need I say any more. You are as true NITWIT
      JT is one of the smartest men in this Great Country..MAGA AGAIN YOU ARE A NITWIT

  9. Professor,

    Thank you for addressing this issue. I had expressed hope that you would in a previous comment. I said that the judge’s comments seemed improper. In fact I was shocked to learn of a judge attacking the Supreme Court in that way. Public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary is dimming and attacks on it by sitting judges do nothing to restore our confidence.

    I was not aware of this particular judge’s reckless comments and decisions in the past.

    Thank you for a fine article.

  10. Judges:. They drink too much and they laugh too loud. Too dumb to make it in no northern town. They’re keeping the Germans down!

  12. Prof. Turley is absolutely correct in his assessment of Judge Edelman and many of his comrades in the Judiciary. Justice Roberts should take steps to punish Edelman for his unethical behavior and in truth, this Judge should be removed from office…it is clear that in his case, justice is not blind.
    Unfortunately, as soon as we have a Democrat Socialist President, and a Senate that matches, Judges like Edelman will be the first to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Thus, as much as many of us see him as a threat to Democracy and Justice, this Judge may very well live to have the last laugh…and that would be pathetic and dangerous to our Constitution and our rule of law.

    1. Well said we need to call out nitwits who are well past the age of sanity. He is too old to be helped
      Put him out to grase in the pasture with all the other donkeys.

  13. The left simply doesn’t care about the Constitution. For them it is an obstacle. They came within one vote of turning the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege granted by the State.

  14. Say what you will about Trump he has forced the idealogues out from behind their cloaks, which are often judicial robes. Thank you President Trump.

    1. The odds of getting Articles of Impeachment from the Democratic-controlled House are poor at best.

      1. Impeachment is not possible politically. The democrat majority are communists who live for “free stuff” and baby murder and that is all they will act on. The American Founders gave you the 2nd Amendment for a reason. They told you what the resolution is in their Declaration of Independence.

        “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

        “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

        The rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of free Americans have been “reduced” to nothing and it is long past time to “…throw off such Government,…”

    1. And sgt, an illegitimate majority based on a seat stolen from a President elected twice by the people and given to one who wasn’t ever elected by the people.

      The clear intent of the constitution is that the court’s connection to popular will is indirect, but through their appointment by the elected President, Remember, our electoral college system was not originally a winner take all system where the guy lost wins. All 5 of the right wing majority were appointed by losers of the popular vote, and Gorsuch’s seat was stolen from a popularly elected President.

      1. The seat was not his and you cannot steal something if you apply legal means to get it. Go drink some camomile and have a lie down.

        1. ti, your disregard for the constitution and good citizenship in the interests of promoting your partisan – and minority – viewpoints is duly noted. The present court by design does not come close to representing Americans.

      2. a seat stolen from a President

        It’s amazing how persistent this stupid meme is. Gainesville among others has used it over and over.

        Again with feeling: congressional confirmation is not an entitlement and Harry Reid had no compunction about bottling up appellate court nominees for years on end. Merrick Garland was treated with courtesy, something partisan Democrats haven’t offered a Republican nominated to the Court in 40-odd years.

        1. Senate advice and consent is an “entitlement” granted to the President in the constitution.

          1. Senate advice and consent is an “entitlement” granted to the President in the constitution.

            It is nothing of the kind and has been refused repeatedly in the last generation.

            1. That’s false TIA:

              Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

              The Senate’s refusal to advise and consent on a SC judge nominated by the President has never happened before and is a new low by the GOP in it’s so far successful attempt to maintain power for the minority of voters and interests it represents.

              There will almost certainly be payback eventually, as lowered bars let all the animals out.

              1. I have no clue how your reading comprehension is so poor that you are willing to attempt to peddle that fanciful reading of the passage. It is quite unremarkable for appellate court nominees to be put on ice or rejected. What do you fancy your beloved Democratic Party was attempting to do in re Brett Kavanaugh 18 months ago? Why do you fancy his nomination to the DC circuit was placed on simmer for three years?

                1. TIA, perhaps you can’t read as the constitution specifically refers to SC judges.

                  This has been interpreted as applying to all federal judges and indeed both parties, most recently the McConnell led Senate in Obama’s last 2 years, has held up district court appointments (which is how Trump came to have so many district court seats available to fill) . The theft of the Garland seat however is a new low, being an all important SC seat, which are specifically called out in the constitution. You can expect payback if you live that long, and I suggest actually reading the constitution so you are able to more intelligently comment on the issues of the day.

                  1. TIA, perhaps you can’t read as the constitution specifically refers to SC judges.

                    I can read it perfectly well, as can you. Why not call up Dianne Feinstein and upChuck Schumer and tell them on your authority that the function of the Senate is purely ceremonial in these matters? It would save us another Kavanaugh imbroglio if they could hear from an expert.

                    1. The function of the Senate is to advise and consent on SC nominations, and withholding consent is within their powers and practiced numerous times over our history. If you don’t know this, why am I talking to you?

                      Not advising or consenting is a new one which I’m sure the stooge majority the GOP has seated would approve of it came to that. The founders would not have nor should Americans of goodwill. In the meantime, Americans of goodwill should remember the court is illegitimate and will be replaced eventually or even made a minority by adding justices, and it’s decisions of temporary duration. The number of justices is not set in the constitution.

                    2. Not advising or consenting is a new one which I’m sure the stooge majority the GOP has seated would approve of it came to that.

                      It is not new at all, and the Democrats repeatedly made a practice of using features of the Senate’s parliamentary rules to gum up the works. Miguel Estrada’s case was one, Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the DC circuit is another. The submission of Garland was put on ice for 10 months. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the DC circuit was stopped up for 34 months. Congress discretion over its parliamentary rules is plenary, and always has been.

                      Again, you’re just making it up as you go along and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    3. TIA’s failure to provide a promised similar case of the Senate’s purposeful failure to carry out it’s proscribed duty (the constitution specifically refers to SC judges) regarding an appointment to the SC is duly noted, He can’t because none exist.

                      Fact: The GOP senate stole a SC seat from a President twice selected by the people and gave it to one who was never selected by the people. This has never occurred prior in our over 200 year history and the court majority is consequently illegitimate.

                    4. (the constitution specifically refers to SC judges)

                      The Constitution delegates to Congress the franchise to create inferior courts. Here’s the money text

                      “2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

                      ‘Advice and Consent’ is the default, which Congress may discard for ‘inferior officers’. Only, flat no one understands ‘advice and consent’ the way you do, and they only do that when they’re talking book for Obama. It will be forgotten when it is no longer convenient to the Democratic Party.

                    5. Btb:

                      “The Senate’s refusal to advise and consent on a SC judge nominated by the President has never happened before and is a new low by the GOP in it’s so far successful attempt to maintain power for the minority of voters and interests it represents.”
                      **************************************
                      Your history is as good as your law. Garland’s case isn’t unique as a quick search of this blog would have told you had you bothered to read before preaching morality to us.

                      “In 1881, Hayes nominated [Stanley] Matthews for the Supreme Court but his close association was viewed as cronyism. Like Merritt Garland, the Senate never acted on the nomination. However, Matthews was then nominated again by James Garfield — leading to his narrow margin of confirmation.”

                      So spare us the moral outrage and return to your life of a keyboard warrior knowing little about what you say but confident in the righteousness of every stroke. Is so very Dim and — like the work of every other stooge — riotously fun to those of us that know better. No fool like an old fool.

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2018/10/07/a-bill-comes-due-reids-folly-becomes-the-democrats-nightmare/

  18. Maybe someday the blindered CJ will realize there are judges on various teams.

  19. News flash! Liberal intellectuals live in bubbles and don’t have critical engagement with anything said by anyone not a liberal intellectual and aren’t particularly…self-aware.

  20. The Judge has severe case of TRUMP Syndrome – blinded by hate and irrational.

Comments are closed.