D.C. Circuit Judge Reggie Walton recently caused a stir in Washington after doing an interview with CNN in which he rebuked former President Donald Trump for his criticism of judges and their family members. Now, Judge Walton has been criticized by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for a surveillance order of the computer of a January 6th defendant to detect any spreading of “disinformation” or “misinformation.”
Critics charged that Walton’s interview with CNN ran afoul of Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which states: “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”
The issue of these public statements by Trump is currently pending before both state and federal courts, including proceedings in the District of Columbia. At a minimum, Judge Walton’s interview showed poor judicial judgment and only reaffirmed the distrust and suspicion of many over the independence of the court system in addressing these controversial cases.
Judge Walton previously called Trump a “charlatan,” and said that “I don’t think he cares about democracy, only power.”
I have previously criticized Trump for public comments against judges and believe that such matters should be primarily raised in court filings. Nevertheless, I have serious objections to the scope of these gag orders on free speech grounds, particularly before an election that could turn in large part on allegations of the weaponization of the legal system. Moreover, we now have a judge who feels the same license to make such criticisms in the media despite the ongoing litigation of these matters.
That alleged transgression, however, pales in comparison to a failure to protect the rights of this defendant from the abusive or unsupported surveillance of the government.
The order reflects the utter impunity shown by the Justice Department in its pursuit of January 6th defendants. Justice Department official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe … it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ … We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”
Sherwin was celebrated for his pledge to use such draconian means to send a message to others in the country. (Sherwin has left the Justice Department and is now a partner at Kobre & Kim).
The surveillance of the computer shows that the Justice Department continues to act with a sense of utter impunity, particularly when judges are willing to blithely sign off on such orders.
The case involved Daniel Goodwyn, 35, of Corinth, Texas, who pleaded guilty on Jan. 31, 2023, to one misdemeanor count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. That is a relatively minor offense but Walton imposed a 60-day jail sentence in June 2023.
Walton reportedly noted that Goodwyn spread “disinformation” during a broadcast of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on March 14, 2023 and ordered that Mr. Goodwyn’s computer be subject to “monitoring and inspection” by a probation agent to check if he spread Jan. 6 disinformation during the term of his supervised release.
As a condition for supervised release, the Justice Department was reportedly seeking evidence on the defendant’s political opinions and Walton felt that that was fine. The appellate judges (Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Bradley Garcia) did not: “The district court plainly erred in imposing the computer-monitoring condition without considering whether it was ‘reasonably related’ to the relevant sentencing factors and involved ‘no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary’ to achieve the purposes behind the sentencing.”
The order indicates that Judge Walton ignored long-standing precedent from 2010 on justifying such surveillance. He could reissue the order in compliance with the precedent, but will have to establish a record and rationale for allowing the government to conduct this search.
We previously discussed judicial orders that conditioned bail for January 6 defendants on their not listening to certain conservative figures. Defendants were asked to publicly declare that they no longer believed certain conspiracy theories or ideological viewpoints, a condition that raises troubling free speech questions.
The Walton order to monitor “disinformation” or “misinformation” is particularly chilling given the controversy over such terms. What people consider to be disinformation is often heavily laden with political judgments and subjectivity. Moreover, allowing the government to monitor communications to detect alleged disinformation creates a perfectly glacial chilling effect.
The Walton order indicates that the government is still demanding to monitor the political readings and communications of January 6th defendants — and to condition their release on avoiding exposure to certain viewpoints.
Jonathan: It is unusual when a sitting Republican appointed judge, like Judge Walton, speaks out on issues of public concern. But dangerous times call and demand that judges speak out.
In an interview on CNN Judge Walton said this: “I think it is important that, as judges, we speak out, and say things, and reference things that conceivably are going to impact the process. Because if we don’t have a viable court system, that’s able to function efficiently, then we have tyranny”. He went on: “…it is very troubling, because I think it is an attack, on the rule of law, when judges are threatened, and particularly when their family is threatened…”
Judge Walton is familiar with threats to judges. He and his family have been threatened. Since Jan. 6 threats to federal judges have doubled–from 224 in 2021 to 457 in 2023–especially against judges presiding over cases involving the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. In addition, Justice Engoron received a bomb threat against his home. A Texas woman was arrested and charged with making a death threat against federal judge Chutkan.
And Judge Walton has not been the only one to speak out about threats on the judiciary. US District Court Judges Royce Lambert and Thomas Hogan, both appointed by Ronald Reagan, have also spoken out publicly. So when Republican appointed judges speak out about attacks on the rule of law and the court system you know there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
In the CNN interview Judge Walton was not making a “public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court” under Canon 3A(6). He was speaking in general about threats to judges and their families. While Walton was clearly referring to DJT’s attack on judges and their family members he was not discussing or opining on any of DJT’s pending cases. But you are suggesting someone should file an ethics complaint against Judge Walton. On cue, Mike Davis, president of the “Article III Project”, filed a complaint against Judge Walton this week. Davis thinks no judge should publicly come out against DJT’s continued threats against judges and their family members.
And who is Mike Davis and the A3P? Davis is a former clerk for Justice Gorsuch. He was instrumental in pushing through Gorsuch’s nomination as well as those of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett. The goal of A3P is to appoint nothing but right-wing judges to the SC. Davis opposed the nomination of Justice Jackson. A3P published the “Jackson Docs” on their website, making false and misleading statements that Jackson “has a well-documented 25-yr history of extreme leniency for sex predators of kids”.
Believe it or not, Jonathan, but judges also have “free speech” rights. They are free to speak put publicly about issues of concern to them and the public. But you and Mike Davis think Judge Walton should be silenced because he is willing to stand up for the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial system. That’s not what I learned in law school–something you forgot about years ago when you signed up to defend DJT! Frankly, I think we need more judges like Judge Walton!
Your “law school” failed you. Your comment is trash.
Anonymous: And where did you go to law school? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones! You demonstrate every day how much “trash” you can throw around without even discussing the issues!
Just curious, isn’t our bill of rights designed to protect us from the government. And aren’t all citizens granted this protection. Even ex presidents.
At a far, far superior institution, with far, far superior students than whatever muffler shop you attended.
You are trash.
Dennis is too brainwashed to ‘discuss’ the issues. He can’t hear anything but the MSDNC programming that has been thoroughly washed into his brain. He cannot “think.” He just regurgitates. Nothing else “computes” in his brain. This is the Democrat Party of today. They have lied to and brainwashed their entire base of supporters. They truly have no idea what is actually going on in the country. NO idea! It’s truly scary to see the damage the Democrat Party and their propaganda media have done to their own people. Talk about being in a Cult! Dennis is exhibit A. Or Patient Zero, as it were.
People whose legal batting average is pretty much ZERO, and who put up as experts others with an average of ZERO should not be pissing on the legal judgement of others who are mostly right.
If I listed the legal claims you ere wrong about, I would be typing for a week.
very troubling, because I think it is an attack, on the rule of law, when judges are threatened, and particularly when their family is threatened…
Schumer sent assassins after SCOTUS Judges. Garland refused to use the applicable federal laws to shut down the dangerous thugs. No charges were brought
The Only thing President Trump has done is to document the threads of corruption woven through the persecutions.
Right. The Court and the country are much better served by the appointment of a left-wing lunatic justice who sides with terrorists and pedophiles, can’t say what a “woman” is, and doesn’t believe in the First Amendment. Right. Good choice Biden. Not.
Ketanji is a perfectly nice judge, who happens to fulfill Biden’s ONLY qualifications, being black and a ‘woman’ (whatever that is). However she ain’t Supreme Court material, if you know what I mean. It’s beyond obvious.
As for you Dennis, every time I read one of your comments, this is my thought: “I cannot believe this is a real person making these idiotic comments under his real name. No one would ever be this stupid and use their real name, would they?”
Yet here you are.
And by “if you know what I mean” I am NOT referring to her being a POC. That is her best quality. As for Biden, it was her first and seemingly only qualification. But as for the “other” qualities “actually” required to serve on the highest court in the land? Snide answers like, “I’m not a biologist” … and a judge whose ideology protects pedos, foreign terrorists, and believes the government should not be ‘hamstrung’ by 1A? Hard no. Mike Davis was correct.
btw, Judge Reggie is not standing up for the rule of law and integrity of judicial system. He is destroying both.
Dennis, did you ever comment on the “PROTESTS” outside Kavanaugh’s house or the ASSASSIN that was caught? Man, you are a freak.
Your correct it is unusual when a judge speaks out.
One of the reasons that it is unusual is that taking a position on an issue that is before them priot to final adjudication requires them to recuse.
Taking a position on an issue that might in the future be before them generally requires them to recuse.
You rant about republican and democrat judges – but for the most part there are no such things.
There are judges that follow the law and constitution – regardless of party, and those who do not.
Those who breach the rule of law can be found regardless of who may have appointed them.
All judges – like ALL humans have difficulty separating their personal biases from there arguments and decisions, yet that is precisely what we DEMAND of judges. We should not be surprised that it is difficult and that most judges are not good at it.
But there are patterns that tend to relate to politics that actually have a foundation in the ideology and politics.
It is far more common for Republicans to have moral foundations independent of political views.
To have a concept of right and wrong that is divorced from politics.
This is a necessity for the rule of law.
If right and wrong are determined by your political beliefs – by ideology – if they are subjective – then there is no right or wrong, and there is no means of structuring society or having government or the rule of law.
Society, government requires “the rule of law”.
The rule of law requires a minimal underlying set of moral foundations that nearly all of us accept.
While government is FORCE, it is not possible to impose even a minimal set of moral constraints by force. Even if it was theoretically possible – it would require at the very least that those imposing the moral constraints actually accept them.
So you read speculation that Hankey was preparing to provide the 500M bond, and after that you think – Nahy, Hankey – who is worth 7.4B is lying about being able to extend a bond for 1/3 that amount ?
Which judge is it that someone traveled all the way from California to Assassinate ?
Democrats feel threatened if someone is unkind to them.
Yet it was the left trying to burn down a federal courthouse.
The Left trying to bash through the doors of the Supreme Court
The left Trying to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.
I will bet that Justice Thomas gets more threats in a day that the entire DC circuits judges.
Judges are NOT free to speak publicly about issues that are before them or MIGHT be before them in the future – if they do, they are required to recuse themselves from cases they have given the appearance of prejudging.
The first amendment guarantees that you can speak freely.
It does not guarantee that after you do you will have a job.
Thanks, Dennis, for the quick & concise note
Perhaps DEI isn’t the best filter for appointing judges.
Or airplane manufacturing.
Or pilots.
Or air traffic control.
Or professors.
Or anything but tokens.
Not one commenter praised Judges Katsas, Roe and Garcia for defending the 1st Amendment. This shows the sad reality of today’s American social media, obsessed with grievance and accusation, and almost blind to those who act with common sense, stability, goodwill and confidence. And it explains how media voices do not present an accurate, factually-weighted version of reality. Many will come away from JT’s posting thinking negatively about the dwindling force of 1A, rather than seeing people in a position of authority upholding it. I refuse to be brainwashed by sensationalist alarmism — because it dulls the senses to detect when a real threat has developed. Have a nice day.
This shows the sad reality of today’s American social media, obsessed with grievance and accusation, and almost blind …. because it dulls the senses to detect when a real threat has developed. Have a nice day.
Says the dude (dudette?) who’s comments regularly reflect “the sad reality of today’s American social media, obsessed with grievance and accusation” as if channeling Joan Crawford as a troll. Professor Turley is correct and your side has lost the trust of the majority of Americans.
Word Press filtering Faye Dunaway doing Joan Crawford is a crime against humor
He’s nothing more than an activist in a robe-either unintelligent enough to hold his position or too radical for it-either way he has to go
“SWIFT JUSTICE”
D.C. Circuit Judge Reggie Walton must be immediately impeached and convicted for egregious actions insufficient of, absent from, and outside of the law and ethical standards.
Dear Prof Turley,
There are only ‘Trump judges’ and ‘Biden judges’ now. Same with the courts. I am somewhat surprised the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia would rebuke a ‘Biden judge’.
Presently, except, maybe, for the ‘Trump judge’ in Florida, the ‘Biden judges’ are way ahead of the game. More importantly, there is only the ‘Biden DoJ’ and ‘defendant Trump et al’. At all costs. By any means necessary. Fair or unfair. .. the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
Much will depend upon “Biden v Trump’ judges and courts in the coming months. Or not.
*Assuming Congress can urgently pass the additional funding for the conflicts in Ukraine, Israel, Tiawan and other far-flung hotspots around the world. .. before all hell breaks out!
Is it possible that these judges on the appellate court are actually giving discretion to the merits of the case as opposed to what the D.C. courts have done, which is by any standard overzealous persecution of trespassing violations?
Machete justice. I’m pretty sure November is our last chance to stop it; otherwise, we’re the United State of Rwanda.
Because the illiberal Democratic Party is so concerned Trump will bring an end to democracy, the Party will see to it that it accomplishes the task first.
It is obvious that the Shadow State has selected People of a certain Age to do their Deeds.
I thought that ‘Retirement’ for their Generation started at age 65 – To be work past 75 seems like a lot of extra-dipping, even as a Retired Annuitant.
Judge Reggie Walton
Reggie Barnett Walton (born February 8, 1949 – 75 yrs old) is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He is a former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FICA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Walton
Judge Arthur Engoron
Arthur F. Engoron (born 1948 or 1949 ~ 75 yrs old) is an American judge serving on the Manhattan Supreme Court since 2013. He presided over the New York civil investigation of the Trump Organization in 2024.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Engoron
-TRA
Their pensions are secured. That is why they were selected as prostitute judges.
2 Trump appointed lackey judges, Kansas and Rao, don’t want Trump criticized. People on probation can be subjected to restrictions. This is what Day 1 Dictator enabler Turkeyboi spews forth
when you have to resort to name-calling and attacks, we know you do not have a valid point to make on this blog.
Wow… the whole article is about how people are being ordered at the threat if jail to not listen to free speech.. and your takeaway is Trump is a dictator? Tell me I’m reading this wrong.
Democrats seem impervious to facts. They have TDS bad.
Are you sort of a communist, or what?
You have an improper sentence for a non-crime, and probation conditions that are unconstitutional AND political.
Probation conditions such as get drug tested weekly are fine.
Or don’t download child porn.
Hopefully even left wing nuts would grasp that conditions like “Vote for Trump” would be unconstitutional.
The courts do not get to decide what legal speach someone can listen to.
They do not even get to do that when you are in prison.
Regardless, Turley’s entire article points out that the left has morphed into the Gestapo.
Look in the mirror – you are what you accuse others of.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced them.
What is this probation that Trump is serving? Did I miss something?
Trump?! What has he got to do with it? How did you drag him in to this?
There are limits to the protections of 1A, and we need more “edge cases” to clarify where the lines are drawn. For example, urging others through published media postings toward illegal activity is an area of to be litigated. A good flagship case is the arrest of illegal Venezuelan immigrant Leonel Moreno, who used Tik Tok to become an anonymous influencer (500,000 followers) teaching how to commandeer unoccupied houses (squat) and then legally disempower their owners from entering them. Also, he was teaching illegals how to obtain taxpayer-provided benefits (involving fraud as an element). His case revolves around his claim that he made his living as an influencer, and his livelihood was taken away.
Jonathan, we’re all waiting to hear you push aside the morally indefensible lifestyle of Moreno, and take up unqualified defense of his 1A freedom of speech based on your expansive interpretations. We want to hear your opinion – is the public urging of criminal behavior, with teaching of specific criminal technique, made from behind the veil of anonymity protected speech under 1A? Where do you come down on this case, JT?
1A has been around for a while, and we need no “edge cases” whatsoever.
A bracelet around the mans ankle and not allowing his political speech to be heard. Is anyone reminded of The Gulag Archipelago engineered by Joseph Stalin? I asked my Bernie Bro daughter if she ever heard of Solzenitsyn. Duh who? was her response. Some animals are more equal than other animals.
“His case revolves around his claim that he made his living as an influencer, and his livelihood was taken away.”
As an illegal alien, is he not prohibited to work in US?
The 1986 Immigration Reform Law only pertains to W-2 employment, where the employer has at least 3 employees. Freelancing, contracting are unregulated. Since Tik Tok content providers are not considered employees, then no , Tik Tok can pay U.S. illegal immigrants for content.
This is a problem relying on law written a decade before the internet took off.
pbinCA – again – we do not fix violations of property rights by restricting free speech.
I would further note that while I oppose illegal immigration, I also oppose pretty much all employment laws.
It is not governments business who I hire. It is a violation of MY rights to require me to do the governments job enforcing immigration laws.
Most of the time when old laws are said not to work in the modern era – that is not because those laws were too narrow. It is because those laws were WRONG in principle.
The distinction between an entrepeneur, a gig worker, a self employed person, a W2 worker, a business owner are all arbitrary and have no place in the law.
We trade value for value – how we do that is up to each of us individually.
@phinCA The problem with the Leonel Moreno case is that there is blatant, overt incitement of specific crimes and is in violation of multiple Title 8 USC statutes regarding being illegally in the country while doing so by his own admission and with prima facie evidence and clear intent for the same. Incitement of illegal behavior such as squatting and defrauding the government of money clearly meant for very specific purposes has not been protected speech. Once his daughter became a pawn to be used on video in this scheme and with clear intent to deprive that child of necessary assistance, the authorities rightly investigated him for the welfare of the child.
Comparing Moreno to people who were invited into the Capitol building and merely trespassed or expressed their constitutional rights to free speech is pure delusion. This is particularly the case when people like Ray Epps who clearly incited entry into the Capitol or the woman who decades ago set off the illegal explosive (and that was pardoned by Jerry Nadler and company due to her political alignment) actually were doing the same thing as Moreno has, like actually taking money meant for his daughter and spending it not on her in an open admission on social media. And no, what Trump said did not rise to the same level at all, particularly given his other speech and the seditious conduct of people who impeded him like Milley or Pelosi.
First, which part of “illegal alien” didn’t you get? Illegals in this country have only limited Constitutional rights…such as the right to due process. Supreme Court precedents hold that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States, because an alien has no right to enter the country, as per United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950). But not ILLEGAL aliens.
But the rights of US Citizens? It certainly protects you from “thought crimes” and from renouncing or denying your political opinions ala the Soviet Union and China, among others. It also mean you can’t be denounced by opponents, informants, etc. to the government (DOJ) to be prosecuted for participation in actions clearly covered by the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Congress for redress of grievances.
If you want to observe authoritarian fascism you have to go no further than the excess of Dems and RINOs like Cheney and their actions on this front. Have a conversation with anybody who has fled a communist country and they will tell you how disconcerting the parallels are.
I don’t see where Liz Cheney has acted against anybody’s right to express themself. She is a devout conservative and Constitutionalist, and has shown great courage politically in standing up to the scheming of unethical Repubs to put forth fake slates of electors in 2020. She, and Mike Pence, were the two Republicans that stood loyal to the Constitution against attempts to “game” it by Trump and Giuliani.
When the DC trial gets underway, the nation will finally get to hear just how far Trump, Giuliani, Bannon, Meadows were willing to go to achieve a political victory by extra-Constitutional means. I know, Biden has been horrible as President, but that doesn’t justify what Trump attempted to do by lawyerly machinations.
Yes, the Dems have to be closely guarded for their attempts to go around the Constitution, but that means keeping to a non-partisan conception of right vs. wrong.
Yes, in the past, Democrats put forth illegal slates of electors. What you have to decide is, was doing so right or wrong? It cannot be wrong for Dems to do so, and right for Repubs to do it. If you say it’s OK for Repubs like Trump, then what do you expect Democrats to do next time they lose a Presidential election by a few states?
In other words, if you want to have a country under rule-of-law, you have to completely set aside “cause” or political-preference when thinking about what is acceptable under the Constitution. And you absolutely cannot take up extra-Constitutional tactics to contain the excesses of the Democrats. That is what Liz Cheney and Mike Pence blocked, and we should be grateful for their clarity and integrity.
Praising Cheney’s integrity? My god, man, get a grip.
A one-sided Stalinist show trial? No cross examination?
Withholding evidence? Lying to the public? Hiring a Hollywood movie producer to make a slick film?
Not interviewing key people whose “facts” would contradict Pelosi/Cheney’s “narrative”?
Then destroying evidence gathered during the course of the show trial?!!
They still refuse to show the mostly peaceful protestors who stayed inside the velvet ropes in the rotunda!
Yet those people are being tossed in prison w excessively harsh sentences bc they were ‘part of the mob’ !!
Make no mistake about the purpose of J6 Commission.
Pelosi said it was to “establish the facts of that day.”
What she meant is “establish and cement” their NARRATIVE for that day.
With a Hollywood movie produced to show ONLY the scenes that “cemented” THEIR narrative into the brains of the public — and the brains of corrupt DC judges who bought it all hook, line and sinker.
If you believe the J6 Committee was about getting to “the truth” about that day, and that Liz Cheney is “devout” with such unquestionable “integrity,” then I’ve got the Francis Scott Key Bridge to sell you.
There are people still today who believe the lies and misinformation spread by Democrats, specifically Chuck Schumer’s staff, that the J6 protestors pissed in the halls and smeared feces on the hallowed walls of Congress — total LIES. That never happened. No cops were beaten to death either, as Biden still lies about to this day. J6 was a setup, entrapment, a FEDsurrection. And Liz Cheney participated in all of the LIES.
SHE belongs in prison, right next to Pelosi. That is the truth.
Who was arrested and thrown in prison for setting up the gallows on Capitol lawn calling for hanging Mike Pence?
Last I heard: no one.
They just haven’t “found” the perps yet.
Could it be….the FEDS did it?
Who put the pipe bombs outside the DNC headquarters?
They just haven’t “found” the perps yet.
Could it be…the FEDS did it?
LOL. You betcha.
And praising oh-so-principled Mike Pence? Really?
That’s for another discussion another time.
You really need to get a grip on what time it is in America, man.
Anonymous and everyone else on this blog:
Please read the following WikiPedia article on something called COINTELPRO, an FBI-led operation which started under J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI in 1956, and originally ended in 1971.
I think this read will be very enlightening and informative, and should give many pause for serious thought and reflection on the times in which we live, Here’s the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
The legal issue with Moreno is NOT his speach. While that may be immoral, it is not and should not be illegal.
It is the poor protection of property rights that is the legal issue that needs addressed.
We do not talk much about property rights here. But even Marx discovered that without property rights society is not governable.
OK, so under your concept of the breadth of 1A, I can go on the internet and teach a class in terrorist attacks using IEDs? I can put out a death threat, and call for the murder of a specific person? Is that what the Founders thought they were establishing? I can teach strangers how to steal cars? C’mon, have you lost all common sense?
We can still have a very free system of thought and expression without tolerating this kind of criminal anarchy.
But it requires taking a nuanced approach, rather than a polemical one.
We have the Brandenburg precedent as a guide.
Yes, you can do all of that except for making an actual threat against someone. Note well that calling for someone’s murder is not a threat. To be unprotected a threat must be phrased in a way that would make a reasonable person believe that you seriously intend to carry it out. Even saying that, in particular circumstances, you would kill that person, is not a threat to actually do so here and now. “If they conscript me and put a rifle in my hands, the first person in my sights will be the President” is 100% protected speech.
Certainly the “gallows” and the calls to “hang Pence” were core political speech, and 100% protected, which is why no one has been or could be arrested for it.
There are no limits on illegal aliens’ first amendment rights. There are no Supreme Court cases saying otherwise, and anyone who claims there are is lying. Every case I’ve seen cited in the past week for this false proposition turns out not to say anything of the sort. Someone is putting out lies and supporting them with fake citations to cases that either don’t address the matter or say the exact opposite.
I’d like to hear Prof Turley’s thoughts on Moreno.
What will happen if the tables are turned next January? Outrage!
I am saddened that my nation I once thought a bastion of freedom, despite some former aberrations, is clearly transmogrified into the same tyrannies that have defaced mankind everywhere else. The bell tolls, ask not whose death is mourned, it is ours, America.
Thank you, counselor Turkey, for your judicious reporting.
One other thing I am so really tired of is that every single time any “news” outlet mentions the trial in Florida the judge is always referred to as Trump appointed, but the other 5 judges dealing with Trump are never labeled as Obama, Clinton or Biden appointed.
We have ONE Trump appointed judge dealing with all of the LAWFARE and she gets called out every time.
HullBobby,
I have also noted the use of the term “far-right” when describing anything not left.
NPR has gone over the top on the use of it. Even describing parties in the EU as “far-right” if they want to limit immigration or other such ideas.
You are right Upstate, the media always labels the right, never the left.
@hullbobby
They also label the non-right but dem-opposed as ‘far right’. It’s pure, unadulterated propaganda, and it’s hilarious and tragic that so many in the ‘peace and love’ generation and their progeny now openly call for the subjugation or murder of people they simply don’t agree with or like very much. 🙄🙄
hullbobby—–I left a comment for you and Lin about AFib over on the post about the CDC lying to the public about vaccines…Just FYI
Thanks, I will go look for it.
The “far right” is anything to the right of Bernie Sanders and Fauxcahantas.
Regardless, it is unwise to try to make comparisons between the political spectrum in Europe and that in the US. Conservative and liberal just do not mean the same thing.
Cannon has given Smith FAR more latitude that he deserves.
This case should have been tossed long ago.
D.C. Circuit Judge Reggie Walton is completely safe. He will spew out his hatred of President Trump in legal opinions with impunity. And how comforting to see that previously, he was one of federal judges on the FISA Court !! No wonder Jim Comey lied on his three affidavits. Old Reggie has his back……..
“Judge Walton has been criticized by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for a surveillance order . . .” (JT)
They’re called “policy judges” — those who, under the cloak of “justice,” do the bidding of the regime. They’re popular with tyrants who wish to suppress dissent, “deprogram” dissenters, and send them to Siberia.
Professor Turley notes that “Justice Department official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview that ‘our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe … it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to…”
Ah, “media posts.” Likewise, I’m fairly certain that this blog site (among several others), -and its topics, -and our responsive comments– are of particular interest to certain “external entities” –who may even “plant” as fellow commenters, (testing responses and/or stoking, stoking, stoking)…….
It’s rather amusing, n’est ce pas?
“You can’t hide your [spyin’] eyes. And your smile is a thin disguise. I thought by now you’d realize. There ain’t no way to hide your [spyin’] eyes” … The Eagles
“And [they] had fun, fun, fun, ’til their daddies took their keyboards away….” The Beach Boys.
(Just having a little fun this a.m. Have a good day, everyone! NO, guys, I am not a conspiracy theorist.)
Lin, when it comes to this judge I am reminded of the words of a great American philosopher, “you’ve been lyin’ when you oughta be truthin’ “, Nancy Sinatra.
Lin,
I have no doubt certain people read the good professor’s site and find it terribly concerning at all the pro-1A and Constitutional people are here.
And the degree we see all the corruption.
We think for ourselves and that terrifies them.
lin…….I left a comment for you and hullbobby about AFib on the post about the CDC lying about the vaccines….Just FYI
The are too many POC’s bringing their social grudges into our courtrooms by taking advantage of dual justice in America 2.0, and combining it with the slothful pace of justice in order to bankrupt those unwilling to kneel before the king.
People of any race will (and should) take advantage of any special preferences and treatment that government offers them.
The moral failure is not on the part of people who take advantage of what government offers, it is of those who stole from all of us to make such an offer in the first place.
These communist judges must be removed from our Judicial system, They are a danger to our Democratic Republic.
Judge Walton is well known for his political bitterness, which is bad enough for a man in his position. What he has done here is a giant step beyond that. RW has no place on the bench.
I agree, but where is the honorable, uncorrupted mechanism for doing so?
There isn’t any, as a practical matter, and this is why democracies do not work. They can not self-correct. Sometimes, the rubbish simply needs to be taken out, and there are too many safeguards and competing interests to do this. I used to not feel this way, but as I have got older and seen more, it appears that free societies have a fatal flaw built into them. Only a dictator or king can do what needs to be done, and then it is a coin-flip whether they are benevolent despots or Hitlers.
For example, we have a large number of people in prison, and prison makes them worse people. Our prisons are brutal, and inhumane. We would do better to execute everyone in prison who has no reasonable chance of rehabilitation (such as the BTK Killer), and reduce the prison population by 2/3 or so. Then strict rules for inmates. Get caught with drugs or shivs – firing squad after an evidentiary hearing. Rape someone while in prison, or assault them in a serious, violent manner – same treatment. You would end up with a prison population that you could provide with education and job training. Plus, criminals at large would now have a meaningful reason to reform. And you reduce the costs to society, and improve our carbon footprint.
Odds of doing something like this in a democracy – 0%.
Here is a good example of what I mean – Rose Bird.
After graduating from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Bird became the first female law clerk in the Supreme Court of Nevada.In February 1977, Governor Brown appointed Bird as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
“Noted opinions
Bird’s opposition to the death penalty was reflexive. She reviewed a total of 65 [7] capital cases appealed to the court. In every instance, she issued a decision overturning the death penalty that had been imposed at trial, including that of serial killer Rodney Alcala. She was joined by at least three of the seven members of the court in 61 of those cases.[1]
In 1981, Bird ruled that the State Constitution required that the state provide free abortions for poor women.[8] In 1982, Bird argued in dissent that the proposed California Proposition 8, known as the Victims’ Bill of Rights, should not be allowed on the ballot.[9] In 1984, Bird and a majority of the court granted the American Federation of Labor’s 1984 original petition to block a balanced budget amendment proposition from appearing on the ballot.
[There was an attempt to remove her from the bench in 1978 – which failed. The attempt was tried again in 1983, with success.]
In 1985, Bird said in interviews that opposition to her rulings was based on sexism, bigotry, and right-wing ideology led by U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese. She said, “These are bully boys. Meese is trying it on the Supreme Court.”[12] Many Democrats later conceded that the remarks backfired on her and other members of the court appointed by Governor Brown.[12] Her rulings and public statements led Bird’s critics to claim that she was substituting her personal opinions and ideas for the law.[13]
The anti-Bird campaign ran television commercials featuring the surviving families of murder victims, whose murderers’ sentences Bird and her fellow Justices Cruz Reynoso, Joseph Grodin, and Allen Broussard had voted to reverse.[14] In addition to Bird, Reynoso and Grodin were also voted off the seven-justice California state supreme court bench. Bird was removed in the November 4, 1986 election by a margin of 67% to 33%.[15]
Justice Stanley Mosk, who often joined Bird, Reynoso, and Grodin, was not challenged. Twelve years later, Mosk explained why he was able to stay and Bird was not:
Rose Bird was pilloried because she generally voted to find some defect in death penalty convictions and to reverse them. I probably don’t like the death penalty any more than she does. As a matter of fact, I think the death penalty is wrong, that a person has no right to kill, and the state has no right to kill. But the difference is that I took an oath to support the law as it is and not as I might prefer it to be, and therefore, I’ve written my share of opinions upholding capital judgments.[16]
Bird was the first and remains the only Chief Justice to be removed from that office by a majority of the state’s voters. Prior to Bird, no California appellate judge had ever failed such a vote.[19]
Source = Rose Bird, wikipedia.
=========================
So, the system worked. One time, and that was only after massive damage. How many federal judges have been impeached? Fifteen, and only five after 1936. None really, for going beyond the bounds of the law in a general sense.
https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges
What are the odds of this stinker judge being removed from office? – 0%.
As a matter of fact, I think the death penalty is wrong, that a person has no right to kill, and the state has no right to kill
That’s wrong. “the people” were executing evil people long before the people dreamed up the Constitution. one thing about the Constitution, it potected the powers the People posesed before the Constitution was written and ratified.
Western Culture, for which I can speak, has always been based on Judeo/Christian values of the Torah and death is and has been the punishment for several egregious crimes. It is only with the advent of “humanism” and its disassociation from the realities of human nature and its attachment to the concept of “the perfectible man” via government fiat etc. that we lost touch of thousands of years of experience dealing with the realities of human nature. When we remove the concepts of people such a Felix Adler (who did much to create the totally unrealistic culture of Reform Judaism and its nonsense of applying the concept of Tikunn Olam as a reason to set prisoners free and save the world through acts of humanism etc) and all the progressive utopians like Bill Gates we might find we need return to the hard won wisdom of the ages. As far as “Progressing” into the future of humanity as these nuts think, they are creating the very grounds for another world war and total cultural disintegration.
The death penalty is the only thing that works for some people, because they can not be fixed. You either execute them, or you lock them up and feed them the rest of their lives. One problem is, that costs money. Another problem is, that they ruin any chance that lesser criminals can be rehabilitated. The prisons overcrowd, and the jails, and people get turned loose before they should be, and then you have more crimes and more victims.
Oh, he could be removed if there was enough coordinated will to do so – and that is where I find the flaw in the conservative/republican right – they are gas bags who allowed the left to commandeer this nation.
The comments by Mosk are the most critical.
Mosk is merely echoing the western concept of “the rule of law”.
I am not a death penalty absolutist. But I am very nearly so.
I am likely close to Bird on the death penalty.
But my distaste for a law, my certainty that it is wrong are morally addressed by seeking to change the law. Not by using whatever position of power I have been put in to just ignore the law and do as I wish.
Trump as president did lots of things that those on the left do not like.
But he did them all WITHIN the law and constitution.
Biden and Obama have done lots of things that many of the rest of us do not like.
They have done them OUTSIDE the law and constitution.
You noted Justice Bird – but we are seeing the same things throughout the left.
If you are a democrat Secretary of State and you do not like the election law you are sworn to uphold – just ignore it.
Everywhere we turn those on the left use whatever power they have to ignore law they do not like.
If that continues long enough – society does not survive.
This is one of the reasons that John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Without moral foundations – government is impossible.
The post Solzhenitsyn evolution of western communist philosophy rejected any morality.
Over the course of decades that philosophy grew to encompass all of academia and siznificant portions of the left and government.
The entire constitution, the federalist papers EVERYTHING falls apart without moral foundations.
Often things that people complain about today are features designed into our system fo govenrment by our founders and the constitution. But they rested on the assumption that most people had some moral foundations.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Exactly, and we are no longer a majority of moral and religious people, or if we are, it ain’t by much. Which is why our country is going down the tubes. When people like Pelosi and Biden claim to be good Catholics, they should be laughed out of the room.