Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.
His name is Lynn Adelman.
I was wrong in 2020. Irony is very much alive.
This week, a judge was randomly selected to preside at the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. A critic of Trump’s immigration policies, Dugan is accused of obstructing federal law enforcement and facilitating the escape of an unlawful immigrant.
The judge assigned to the Dugan case? You guessed it. Lynn Adelman, 85.
A judge is expected to come to a case like this one without the burden of his own baggage. Judge Adelman is carrying more baggage than Amtrak in Wisconsin.
The selection of Adelman shows how political commentary by judges undermines the legitimacy of the court system. Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.
Adelman was a long-standing Democratic politician who tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to run for Congress during his 20-year tenure in the Wisconsin Senate. For critics, Adelman never set aside his political agenda after President Bill Clinton nominated him for the federal bench.
Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election. Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stinging reversal, explaining to Adelman that in “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong.”
Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”
Adelman attacked what he described as a “hard-right majority” that is “actively participating in undermining American democracy.” He also struck out at Trump as “an autocrat… disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”
Adelman was later admonished by the Civility Committee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for his public political attacks as “inconsistent with a judge’s duty to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and as reflecting adversely on the judge’s impartiality.”
The costs of such extrajudicial commentary became vividly clear this week. Judge Dugan is being called a “hero” by Democratic politicians and pundits for helping an individual evade federal arrest. At least one judge has pledged to do the same in her courtroom. On the other side, many are appalled by Dugan’s conduct as fundamentally at odds with the role of a jurist in either the state or federal system.
There are weighty issues in the case and the public has a right to expect a fair trial with a judge who will not be swayed by his own political viewpoints. Dugan already had the advantage of a trial before a jury taken from one of the most liberal districts in the country. She will now have a judge who was himself sanctioned for political statements and reversed for ignoring controlling precedent.
The case Judge doesn’t want to be overturned on appeal for procedural bias in favor of a fellow Judge. That limits what he can do to sway the jury.
I think the prosecution has to avoid any hint of political motivation, and just point out the facts of how this Judge-defendant acted in a dishonest, conniving manner unworthy of her position of trust. Make her out to be a political zealot, while the prosecution, jury, and community are together in seeking to depoliticize the legal system.
#. I wish PT had provided a link to Adelman’s “public screed”. Rummaging through Adelman’s writings is time consuming. He’s for campaign finance reform and writes – how big money ruined the political system. He’s anti repubs …
Whether Dugan or Lamona McIvers it’s publicity and expensive. What’s the price tag for these 2 being charged, in court, appeals both hoping for fame in the log of SCOTUS cases. 😏.
^^ Judge Dugan set up a legal defense fund. Unkn how much is in it or donors. Who’s paying for the prosecution?
* Didn’t look up Lamona. Surely her legal defense fund is popping.
Both are careless with public money and waste.
Trump isn’t above the law, but judge Dugan is. It’s that simple.
Sometimes the judge is unfriendly to your cause. By now you should know the routine.
Once again, Dennis McInliar steps in the doo doo he posts.
This pretty much sums it up. CLEARLY stating that it is ROUTINE for judges to be biased and ignore the law in favor of their own prejudices.
This of course, the day after complaining about the MAGA SCOTUS.
Please allow Dennis SmakInTire to continue to post his Marxist drivel. I depend on this creature to tell me what is true by taking the precise opposite of anything he says.
Republicans ARE WEAK!
I want judges OVER RULED…REMOVED!
In another remarkable mix of judicial cowardice and corruption the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the apparent judicial lynching of Derek Chauvin.
The autopsy said Floyd had no life threatening injuries.
Floyd had 11ng/mL fentanyl in his system, a lethal dose.
Floyd had 90% blockage of 2 arteries.
It appears that two prominent prosecution witnesses lied on the stand under oath.
Jury appears to have been intimidated by the mob.
Exculpatory evidence was apparently blocked by the judge…evidence that the restraint Chauvin used, knee on shoulder, was taught to the police and was routinely used.
Jury was not sequestered.
No change of venue.
City early settled case brought be Floyd family implying officers were guilty.
Fiery but peaceful sacking of the city.
Roberts court is a disgrace to a civilized nation. It should relocate to South Africa or Afghanistan, somewhere they make up crap as they go.
But keep Thomas and Alito here.
We need some genuine legal minds.
Here’s what the Hennepin County Medical Examiner concluded: “CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT
SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION ”
The autopsy report does NOT say he died of a drug overdose.
The problem is that liberals and their parasitic minions want their “free stuff” and “free status.” The problem for them is that communism is unconstitutional. The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional; no legal basis for it can be cited in the Constitution. That makes the illicit beneficiaries really, really mad.
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.
Jonathan: It’s all sour grapes on your part. You seem to always complain when a “liberal” judge is appointed to an important case. This time it’s Judge Dugan who was assigned Judge Lynn Adelman. You want us to believe “liberal” judges cannot be fair and impartial. That’s an unfounded charge.
Don’t recall you complaining when right-wing anti-abortion groups forum shopped and found ultra right-wing conservative Judge Kacszmaryk in east Texas who dutifully issued a nationwide injunction against mifepristone. In fact, you applauded that ruling. But now that the judicial roulette wheel has landed on Judge Adelman who will preside over Judge Dugan’s case you are suddenly outraged about how Adelman is “undermining the judiciary with screeds against conservatives on the Supreme Court and in Congress”.
As a lawyer who practices in federal court you should know it’s always a crap shoot. Sometimes you get a friendly judge. Sometimes the judge is unfriendly to your cause. By now you should know the routine. Plead your case effectively and hope for the best. But don’t complain in advance that the cards are stacked against you. That’s a loser’s game!
Sour grapes or conscientious self-examination? If more “democrats” engaged in this virtue, there would be civilized bipartisanship.
” This time it’s Judge Dugan who was assigned Judge Lynn Adelman. You want us to believe “liberal” judges cannot be fair and impartial.”
Left wing judges self evidently are rarely impartial, rarely fair, rarely constitutional and rarely lawful. We see evidence of that everyday.
When Jusice Kagan ranted that lower courts had ruled against Trump constantly – she was unintentionally making that point.
Yesterday SCOTUS – including Kagan ruled 8-1 in Trumps favor on an AEA case Once again asserting that Trump can deport using the AEA and that Habeaus was the only due process required. Yet dozens of lower court decisions are on the wrong side of that – and continue to be.
Today a lower court judge took to lecturing the supreme court over this.
Yes Left wing nut judges are lawless. And yes that problem is primarily on the left.
SCOTUS rejected the 14th amendment nonsense 9-0 – yet more than 100 left wing nut judges and law professors did not see that coming. Nearly every intelligent person capable of critical thinking did.
Nor is that the only 9-0 decision that obliterated left wing nut fantasies shilled by left wing nut judges and appeals courts.
Yes, far more courts are biased to the left than the right. I would further note that actual CONSERVATIVE (as opposed to republican or MAGA, or right wing ) BIAS is not only a good thing but an actual REQUIREMENT. Conservative means slow to change. It means that change must be proven necescary and likely successful before it is allowed. And that is precisely what we want of the courts. The courts must follow the law and the constitution – NOT accomplish societal changes. When the people want change in govenrment and law – they do so through the legislative process or amending the constitution. Not through the judicary.
“Don’t recall you complaining when right-wing anti-abortion groups forum shopped and found ultra right-wing conservative Judge Kacszmaryk in east Texas who dutifully issued a nationwide injunction against mifepristone.”
We have been through this before – While I would eliminate the FDA and let people take whatever medications they wish without perscriptions – the FACT is that Kacszmaryk was correct – FDA did not follow its own rules.
This is not a political issue. It should have nothing to do with abortion.
If you beleive that an FDA is necescary then its decisions regarding what drugs are OTC, what drugs are perscription, what drugs are banned, what drugs have black box labels must be based on RULES not politics.
I would allow you to take whatever drugs you personally wish – shoot fentanyl if you want.
But those of you on the left decided that people can not make their own decisions as to what drugs they will take, so YOU are stuck with that, and those decisions are made based on rules and statistics regarding the safety of those drugs – both for their intended purpose and as they are actually used.
The left tried to claim the damning data on Mifesprone was because it was not being used as directed. SO WHAT ?
YOU decided It is NOT OK for people to chose what drugs they take – But it IS OK for them to fail to follow directions and harm themselves ?
There is no difference between restricting peoples right to take something they shouldnt because it is not safe. and restricting their right to take something for a purpose they shouldn’t or in a way that they shouldnt
Either you trust people or you don’t.
Regardless Mifesperone is more dangerous than drugs the FDA will not approve.
It is the job of the FDA to decide what Drugs are safe. Not What purposes we should favor or disfavor.
There are no bonus points in drug safety statistics for unsafe drugs that serve left wing desirable purposes.
“But now that the judicial roulette wheel has landed on Judge Adelman”
One of the quite obvious complaints that most everyone sees is that the “judicial roulette wheel” is clearly rigged. Boasberg only one of Dozens of Judges in DC got 4 or 5 of about a dozen cases against the Trump administration. That is in theory possible, but the odds against it are slim.
There are approximately equal numbers of conservative and left leaning judges.
But even that does not tell the whole story – because almost 2/3 of the left leaning judges are NOT politically biased nut jobs. Probably 80% of the cases against the Trump administration are before only the left most 1/6th of the judiciary. This BTW is one of the arguments against nationwide injunctions. SCOTUS as well as the entire country benefit when very similar cases are heard by a number of different judges with different biases accross the country.
This process is something that aides the appelate courts and particularly the supreme court and often makes them appear wiser than they are – they have the benefit of the views of all perspectives from lower courts.
WE can see this in the spate of emergency orders that SCOTUS has been spraing in response to all this left wing lawfare. Whether Trump wins or loses the decisions are pretty universally badly written. These are all rushed decisions with very limited analysis by lower courts.
That is a recipe for bad decisions – or good decisions badly written.
“who will preside over Judge Dugan’s case”
Should not matter – but it obviously does.
Even YOU grasp that had Dugan got 95% of other judges it is likely the outcome would be different.
You do not seem to understand – this is not football or monopoly.
This is the law. The objective is not for your side to WIN but for the law to be followed.
Justice, the country is not served if Dugan gets lucky gets off, but other judges, lawyers, or ordiary people are unspired to obstruct ICE and near universally do NOT get lucky.
“you are suddenly outraged about how Adelman is “undermining the judiciary with screeds against conservatives on the Supreme Court and in Congress”.”
I have no problem with law professors ranting about the supreme court.
I have no problem with lawyers ranting about the supreme court.
Judges are obligated to follow the law and the constitution, and with respect to a Judge the supreme court is their final authority. They are obligated to follow whatever the supreme court dictates, and if they can not do that resign.
Oddly you are arguing that Adelman can do what you claim Trump can and ignore a court order.
“As a lawyer who practices in federal court you should know it’s always a crap shoot. Sometimes you get a friendly judge. Sometimes the judge is unfriendly to your cause. By now you should know the routine. Plead your case effectively and hope for the best. But don’t complain in advance that the cards are stacked against you. That’s a loser’s game!”
That has always to a small degree been true. At the same time that is ALWAYS a violation fo the rule of law.
The outcome of a case, Every single decision, every word in oppinions should be the same no matter what judge has the case.
That is what the rule of law NOT MEN means.
That is Why conservatives argue against this living constitution BS.
Because the law and constitution MUST be read in a way that has the highest possible change of being the same no matter what judge or lawyer or even laymen does so – so long as they scruplously follow the rules for judicial interpretation.
That is what the rule of law not men means.
Whether Dugan is convicted or not should hinge on the facts and the law, and the outcome should be the same with every judge and every jury in the country.
Obviously – that is an aspiration not reality.
But idiots like you and those on the left are elevating a FLAW as if it is a feature.
Excellent commentary and argument! Well done e Sir!
Your comparison of Kacszmaryk to Adelman is slanderous. Since Kacszmaryk was appointed to the bench, has he made any political statements?! No, he hasn’t. Adelman is a disgrace, he has violated the basic judicial ethics, and should be removed from the bench; he certainly must be removed from this case, which I do NOT believe he was assigned at random.
OT
An Obama judge who seems to think he was elected to the Presidency appears eager to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for deporting thugs to Sudan.
Okay. But the actual President can pardon crimes. What happens then?
Given the care the administration has taken with judicial orders I used to think a blatant conflict with the judiciary could be avoided until the Robert’s Court stepped in. But now I suspect that the collision will happen because , perhaps, Roberts sees political advantages to it. The judiciary, the radical part of it, is trying to get a head on collision and then they can shout ‘rule of law’ and upend the Trump administration.
That likely will not end as they hope. The judiciary under Roberts is beginning to look like petty tyrants due for a trip to the woodshed. The judges have the disgraced corporate media on their side but not the people.
The administration is doing a great job of wrong footing these radical judges.
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1925210814094385217
The judges are demanding that criminal monsters be brought back to American territory.
I would like to see some of them housed in the judges’ neighborhoods.
The judiciary is building an impressive record of hostility to the Constitution and public safety and common sense.
Robert’s judiciary can’t say it hasn’t been warned.
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1925210814094385217
Roberts seems to think he will go down in history as another justice Marshall but he is building a record as another Taney. Nobody said his job was to police the President for good or ill. Congress and the President need to put this delusional toad back in his chair.
Meant to post this:
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/21/trump-jd-vance-john-roberts-supreme-court
Vance is right. Scotus needs to check the excesses of the judicial branch before it can credibly check the executive. Roberts is like the person in the parable who tries to take a speck out of someone else’s eye while forgetting to remove the log from his own eye.
Oldman,
Roberts likes the log in his eye and that’s a problem.
I don’t know how his authority to decide cases and controversies morphed into a power to supplant the President and Congress.
I do not think Roberts wants what he is getting. I do not think Roberts is getting any advantage from it.
Roberts just fails to grasp that the authority of the judiciary rests solely on its respect,
that respect must be earned, and that the judiciary has lost the respect of most of the country.
That is an enormous problem. That is an actual “threat to democracy”.
When our judicial system does NOT work – if that is rare, we put up with it, as Madison said “men are not angels” we must govern ourself and as we are imperfect we will do so imperfectly.
But all the process, the constitution, the laws, the often centuries old rules of judicial procedure are there to reduce the frequency of error or Bias, and to produce to the best possible consistent outcomes. We aspire to have the same facts and the same law produce the same outcome with every possible judge and every possible jury. Our justice system may be a game for the lawyers – but it is NOT for citizens or government.
When we reach the position where it matters alot which judges get which cases – we have “the rule of man. not the rule of law”
When that occurs trust in government and specifically trust in the judiciary is eroded and possibly destroyed.
When that happens we demand ever more draconian “solutions” to “restore order”
And that is when we are in danger of authoritarianism.
Authoritarian government arises from chaos, it does not arise spontaneously.
It happens when things are out of control and government is unpredictable and chaotic.
Contra the left – Trump is highly predictable – he does what he says he will do.
Trump is teaching our political class the free market lesson, that Trust is created by doing what you promise.
The chaos we have in government today comes almost entirely from the left.
And chaos in govenrment is incredibly dangerous – that he how we get Lenin and Mao and Hilter and Musollini and Pol Pot and Castor, and every totalitarian leader that ever was.
Sally Quinn, a liberal WaPo columnist, has stated the obvious:
it was elder abuse
– Sally Quinn
OOPS…
Well Estovir, when all is said and done, we’ve seen the seat of evil, huh? What luck…
Prof. Turley… no.. you were not wrong 5 years ago.. and.. no… no way was this selection ‘random..’ There are no coincidences.. all the ping pong balls in the bin had ‘ADELMAN’ on them…. Your words of Truth ring for both sides: ‘When you don that robe, you must discard your politics. Some, however, seem to cling to both the bias and the bench.’
Who believes this selection was “random”????????
Nobody. Roberts runs a pretty sloppy house. A few weeks ago I would not have thought this but I am starting to wonder if Roberts is corrupt. Given what is happening in the courts Occam’s Razor is beginning to slice that way. A few more bizarre actions and there won’t be any alternatives left.
I started wondering about Roberts when he “passed” the ACA making “new law.” At that time someone suggested he was corrupt and it had to do with adoption. I casually looked and found nothing so I dropped it, but it is hard for me to understand his actions. When the logic is screwy something is generally amiss.
The ACA decision (NFIB v Sibelius) was a good decision, and did NOT make “new law”. It carefully applied existing law and made a convincing argument. All speculation about his children’s adoption is pure character smearing, spread by swamp-creatures on the right who are every bit as bad and as conscienceless as the ones on the left.
The “good decision” with its “convincing argument” included finding the individual mandate unconstitutional – then allowing the law to stand.
Yes. Miillhouse is on the muscle this morning, with multiple comments, many being wrong.
None of my comments are wrong. If any were, you would have provided evidence against them. You can’t, so you just sling empty words against them.
A mandate to buy insurance WOULD be unconstitutional. But the ACA contained no such mandate. If you have not read the decision you have no right to criticize its reasoning.
No the ACA decision was not good law. The ACA as written was clearly unconstitutional.
Roberts had to play all kinds of games actually changing the law in ways the law itself did NOT allow to attempt to make it appear to be constitutional,
And then in a later case when it was evident that his mangling produced an unconstitutional result, he reversed significant portions of his own ACA position to avoid tossing the ACA as unconstitutional as applied.
There are three major problems with nearly everything the federal government (and state governments do)
First – they are a bad idea. As one of the 4 greatest economists in the past century Ronald Coase established and won a Nobel for, when a problem can be solved by bargaining – free markets, free markets will produce the closest to optimal result.
That means government should not do anything that can be accomplished without government. There are very very things that only government can do.
Providing health insurance is not one of them.
Not only do free markets ultimately always deliver better solutions – they are also more efficient. Why is efficiency important ? Because efficiency means higher standard of living. When government delivers something that can be delivered by free markets it ALWAYS does so less efficiently. I would not We KNOW that both in theory and in practice. While Coase established the superiority of markets as a matter of logic and mathematics. Others previously established it with respect to earlier debates on what was called the socialist calculation problem.
There is a massive amount of 20th century as well as some 19th century data and logic establishing this. But as a practical matter Coase and the socialist calculation problem were proven by the repeated failures of all socialist, or statist governments.
Put simply government can not deliver goods and services efficiently and will ALWAYS deliver a worse outcome for all that any system that involves less govenrment.
This is true in theory, true by logic, and true by repeated proof in practice.
The 2nd problem is that the US constitution does not give these powers to the federal government – in the case of things like heatlhcare it does not allow either the federal or state govenrment to deliver these.
Read as written the constitution provides for a federal government that has significant power albeit within a very limited domain and that requires a string of supermajority support to be able to weild that power. The vast majority of the federal govenrment today is both unnecescary and unconstitutional. If you do not like that – change the constitution.
The 3rd problem is that Even using the bastardized New Deal Supreme court mangling of the power of the federal government – things like the ACA are STILL unconstitutional.
Roberts had to tie himself in knots to save the ACA, and then he had to do it again later when unsuprisingly the ACA could not work as he mangled it.
But that should not be surprising – as Coase and the socialist calculation problem demonstrate – govenrment will never have the knowledge or the power to deliver anything that the free market is able to do easily, cheaper and more efficiently.
John Say, did you READ the decision? From your answer I don’t think you did. Roberts did not play any games. He described the situation exactly as it was. Congress had passed a tax, while claiming it was not. What Congress claimed it had done was unconstitutional, BUT IT HAD NOT DONE THAT. And the courts have long held that they must look only at what Congress has done, not at what it falsely claims to have done. Politicians lie, and the courts do not accept those lies.
“The ACA decision (NFIB v Sibelius) was a good decisio”
Milhouse, we agree that Roberts was smeared but his actions on some important legislation deviated from logic. This justly leaves people searching for a reason.
The ACA is Terrible law. We can discuss why elsewhere but if you read the law you will see its many faults including its lack of specificity throughout that leaves important consequential decisions to the Secretary of State which then creates new law. [Search the law with variants of ‘the secretary will decide” and you will find those variants repeated more than one-hundred times on the most important basic issues]
But we are discussing Justice Robert’s part in “passing” the law. which is not his job. He said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” That statement was correct but he did the opposite. The individual mandate exceeded Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause. The penalty was not a tax and many in Congress denied it was a tax. If it were the bill would not have been passed as is. Instead of doing the right thing of sending the bill back to Congress he went against what many Congressmen explicitly stated and “legislated “ it a tax.
I appreciate your desire in teaching Congress how to create a lawful bill, but that work should not be done by the Supreme Court. Instead of judicial activism, the law should have been sent back to Congress for correction. What do you think would happen if it was it went back? It would have failed Congressional approval. Tell me, isn’t Congress the one supposed to pass legislation?
S. Meyer, the “mandate” very clearly WAS a tax. If you’d read the decision you would know that. What “many in Congress denied” is completely irrelevant. Who the **** CARES what “many in Congress deny”? Many in Congress deny all kinds of things; are the courts supposed to start believing things just because many in Congress say so?! Is it really your position that the courts must believe whatever Congressmen say?!
THAT is the core position of NFIB v Sibelius. That the courts care only about what Congress HAS done, not what it says it has done. And I don’t see how any conservative or libertarian can argue with that.
“S. Meyer, the “mandate” very clearly WAS a tax.”
Really? Congress made it loud and clear that the penalty wasn’t a tax.”
” If you’d read the decision you would know that.”
I did read the decision. But if you had read or listened to the Congressional debate, you’d know that Congress explicitly rejected the idea that it was a tax.
“What “many in Congress denied” is completely irrelevant. Who the **** CARES what “many in Congress deny”? Many in Congress deny all kinds of things; are the courts supposed to start believing things just because many in Congress say so?! Is it really your position that the courts must believe whatever Congressmen say?!”
That’s the usual leftist position: who cares what the Constitution says or what the bill says? Justice Roberts had no authority to rewrite the bill, especially not in a way that Congress said it would not accept.
Roberts himself initially found the penalty unconstitutional. His duty as a judge, not a legislator, was to send it back to Congress and let them vote on a bill that explicitly used the word “tax.”
You wanted the law to pass even if Congress wouldn’t approve it. That’s judicial activism, plain and simple.
“THAT is the core position of NFIB v Sibelius. That the courts care only about what Congress HAS done, not what it says it has done.”
What Congress did was pass an unconstitutional bill. The Court’s job was to say so, not to rewrite the bill and rescue it. It should have been sent back to Congress for correction, not reinterpreted from the bench.
S. Meyer– “When the logic is screwy something is generally amiss.”
True. If memory serves, neither side of the ACA dispute expected the case to be resolved the way it did. That sometimes happens when a judge has a different perspective. But Roberts’ decision in that case seemed a bit too twisted to be a simple matter of different legal perspective. Instead it looked like he was making pretzels to achieve a political outcome.
Unexpected reasoning in a decision does NOT always mean a bad or concocted decision.
The 9-0 14th amendment case produced an outcome I expected, but the reaoning did not match ANY of the legal arguments made publicly or in lower courts.
It was BETTER than the public debate or lower court analysis.
It was reassuring to see the 9 justices of the supreme court demonstrate that atleast once they were really the cream of the crop.
But we are seeing the opposite with all these emergency TRO cases.
Even when SCOTUS gets the decision right their opinions are pretty poor.
This is BTW one of the reasons that TRO’s and preliminary injunctions are supposed to be very hard to get.
Everyone – not just judges does NOT make their best decisions when they are rushed and do not get the benefit of time, deep examination of facts, presentation of evidence and cross examination.
Humans MUST make rushed decisions sometimes and some of us are better at that than others.
But courts are supposed to AVOID rushed decisions because very very very few people are good at them.
One of the major problems with the current lawfare against Trump is not that we need new rules. It is that we need the actual rules to be followed.
Boasberge does not have jurisdiction and NEVER did – yet there is still the vestiges of a case in his court – even after SCOTUS told him there is no due process except Habeaus regarided and DC does not have jurisidction over Habeaus for petitioners in TX.
Judge Xinis is trying to relitigate judicial decisions regarding Abrego Garcia that were made more than 5 years ago and that Garcia waived appeal rights, so those determinations are FINAL, Garcia could have apealed the multipl court decisions that he was an MS13 member – he did not.
Judge Xinis can not reopen that now. What the left keeps seeking is NOT due process, but ENDLESS process.
Due process exists because humans make errors and justice is served when there is some oportunity to correct actual errors.
the above are only a FEW examples of the failures of the courts to follow the rules for due process. There are many many more.
“Unexpected reasoning in a decision does NOT always mean a bad or concocted decision.”
Changing essential words written by Congress, where the alternate word was debated means that Roberts was legislating and not acting within his powers as a Supreme Court Judge.
Roberts did not change any words. He correctly looked at what Congress had done, and that was to impose a tax. You can’t seriously think that the courts should take Congress at its word, or that Congress can change the reality of something simply by calling it something else. That would completely destroy the constitution. Congress could impose censorship, simply by calling it a birthday cake.
“Roberts did not change any words. He correctly looked at what Congress had done, and that was to impose a tax.”
You’re right that Roberts didn’t touch the wording; he only rewrote the meaning while obliterating Congress’s intent. You also seem comfortable with the judiciary expanding its role to that of legislators.
Congratulations on your new vision for the Court: justices who convert the intent of laws to fit their own preferences. Is your next step to eliminate Congress altogether?
“that the courts should take
Congress at its word, or that Congress can change the reality of something simply by calling it something else.”
Courts don’t need to take Congress at its word if the result is unconstitutional. But their duty is to strike it down, not to salvage it by rewriting the law.
“That would completely destroy the constitution.”
How? If Congress acts unconstitutionally, the Supreme Court rejects the bill. What destroys the Constitution is when the Court rewrites legislation to preserve it. That’s not the balance of powers that’s judicial overreach.
“Congress could impose censorship, simply by calling it a birthday cake.”
No! They could try. But the Court would reject it, and Congress would have to rewrite the bill. That’s how the separation of powers works.
“Judge Xinis is trying to relitigate judicial decisions regarding Abrego Garcia that were made more than 5 years ago”
No, she is not. There has NEVER been a judicial decision about Garcia. Only decisions in immigration “courts”. Immigration “judges” are just like ALJs. They are NOT real judges, and their decisions are NOT judicial decisions, and a person ALWAYS has the right to habeas corpus regardless of anything these minions of the executive have “found”.
Who is Dugan to judge anyone?
For me, one of the corollary issues here is that, (for comparison) -in those court cases involving Trump, there is a genuine disagreement about the meaning, purpose, or purview of an act or statute (e.g. AEA), i.e., both sides are disagreeing over the same substantive matter or its scope/application; -importantly, one side being the jurist/judge over the matter, and the gov’t being the other side. A higher court will resolve the matter.
But in Dugan’s case, immigrant Garcia was before her on a domestic violence complaint, –having nothing to do with any immigration matter.
Dugan was neither party to, nor adjudicator of, any disagreement in an immigration matter. Not only was the subject matter outside of her official purview, but it also did not involve her courtroom.
This means that she injected her personal views, opinions, and biases to a matter that did not involve her, her courtroom, or a case before her.
To me, this makes her interference/involvement particularly egregious. The “random” selection of Adelman warrants another smirk.
Um, it was her courtroom. I don’t understand why you claim it wasn’t. If it weren’t her courtroom how could she have been involved at all? How could she have let the defendant out the side entrance of someone else’s courtroom?
The ICE were waiting outside in the COURTHOUSE area for the general public. She went back into her COURTROOM and ushered the guy out the back.
Exactly. She ushered him out of HER COURTROOM. Which is where he was. And that was a crime, for which she is now properly facing trial. I hope she goes to prison for it. But you can’t deny that it was her courtroom.
Complaint, Para 10: “As such, members of the Milwaukee ICE ERO Task Force developed a plan
to arrest Flores-Ruiz in a public area outside of Courtroom 615 following his scheduled criminal
court appearance before Judge DUGAN.”
And? What is your point? Yes, they were going to arrest him outside the courtroom. But he wasn’t outside it. He was INside it, and she helped him escape from it. That is the point.
Hey millhouse, get you facts straight. https://www.news8000.com/news/new-video-showing-confrontation-between-judge-dugan-and-ice-agents-released/article_dcf3873b-30a4-462c-b21c-ec2f5d5b2381.html
Anonymous, what is your point? Did the crime take place in her courtroom or did it not? The obvious answer is, yes it did. The fugitive was in her courtroom, and that is where she helped him escape. That makes her a criminal.
Milhouse – it is “her courtroom” while court is in session. Judge have no property interest in public buildings. The issue is not about physical space.
The domain of Judge Dugan’s power and the domain in which that power in this case exceeds that of ICE/DHS is From the start of the hearing on Ruis to the end of the hearing on Ruis.
ICE/DHS/the feds are free to enter any courtroom in the country they wish to serve administrative warrants. What an administrative warrant does NOT allow is the disruption of a judicial proceeding.
Judge Dugan telling Ruis and his lawyers to ask for a Zoom hearing next time – was fully within her official powers and she can not be charged for that – and she has been and I beleive that charge will fail. BUT that action can be used as evidence of criminal intent. So it will be admissible against her.
Her actions BEFORE and AFTER the procedings against Ruis are not official, not part of her role as a judge. There is no difference between Dugan sending the DEA/FBI/ICE agents off on a wild goose chase to the Cheif Judge who she knew was not in the building, and an ordinary person doing the same. There is no difference between Judge Dugan attempting to shepard Ruis out a side door where she hopes and beleives he might get away from ICE/DHS/FBI,
and an ordinary person doing the same.
She was not engaged in her official duties. Contra claims here and elsewhere ICE is allowed INSIDE court buildings and court rooms. They are not allowed to act on an administrative warrant while the court is in session. They can be present – just as any other member of the public can – we do not conduct judicial proceedings in secret in this country. But they can not act during the proceeding.
John, none of that is relevant. Right now we are discussing lin’s claim that her courtroom was not involved. I don’t know why lin would claim that. The room where the fugitive was, and from which Dugan helped him escape, thus committing a felony, was in fact her courtroom. Why would anyone dispute that? What could they gain by doing so?
ICE never went inside the courtroom. They waited outside in a public hallway (where the judge has no authority.) The judge left her courtroom, confronted the ICE agents in the public hallway, then lied to them and sent them on a wild goose chase while she then returned to her courtroom, cancelled the case involving the illegal alien, and then ushered him through a private door. Continuing to argue about “her courtroom” being involved in any way proves you’re arguing in bad faith or have brain damage.
You make excellent points.
As a senior judge, was Adelman assigned the case or did he get to chose it?
Although he is 85, he is not a “senior” judge, as that is a status that an “active” judge can elect to take to get a reduced workload. Judge Adelman still has “active” status, and thus his name would have been in the pool used to randomly select the judge to be assigned to this case..
The political and economic unrest in the US must be interesting to those the law and other academics but the ordinary juror really cannot understand it. The attorneys will make persuasive arguments to persuade jurors as to innocence or guilt and can easily be duped. Then the appeals for process errors come next?
Weary… have a peaceful and enjoyable day. Tragic
I predict she’ll waiver her right to a jury, and the biased judge will acquit her. The government cannot appeal acquittals, nor can it demand a jury.
I also suspect Judge Dugan will be acquitted, but for different reasons.
*if such is the case, will DHS or ICE have legal immunity from any civil liability?
Judge Dugan does not matter. Even if not acquitted she would receive a slap on the wrist.
What matters is the effect of this case on the behavior of others.
The more forcefully Dugan is dealt with the less likely others – judges, mayors, state representatives will engage in similar interference.
At the same time, I would note that just as Trump benefited from the pre-election lawfare against him. He, the GOP and MAGA benefit from this lawfare.
The more the left fights tooth and nail over 80:20 issues the more they lose the support of the public and the more extreme they make themselves appear.
Democrats are in a lose-lose situation.
Most of the country is NOT going to say “Justice is served” if Dugan is acquitted.
They are going to go “What the F#$K ?”
They are going to go “there is no way I could get away with similar lawless conduct justified by my politics”
This lawfare does not benefit democrats – even when they win.
OldManFromKS,
I agree with your assessment. The biased judge will acquit her.
Probably – but I also suspect this case will result in innumerable appeals on issues of law BEFORE the trial starts. The longer this takes regardless of the outcome the better for the administration.
Every appeal by DOJ of every Adelman decision is another news cycle that features this.
It is another oportunity to question Adelman’s bias.
It is another instance in which people wonder why it is so hard to convict Dugan of obvious misconduct.
Every DOJ victory in court is also a victory in the court of public opinion.
Every DOJ loss in court is a victory in the court of public opinion.
Democrats have been botching this issue
They NEED high profile cases involving model immigrant mothers having babies ripped from their arms.
But they keep going to the Mat for wife beaters, violent criminals, and gang bangers.
They also create compare and contrasts to the Biden administration.
J6’ers did not get the Due process that illegal alien gang bangers are getting.
People with conservative values were SWATTED (and continue to be) by the Biden admin and left wing nuts in government.
Gabbard investigated and is now releasing information on the “clear skys” program that was used to surveil her. And that information is daming. People were placed in Clear Sky Surveilance because phoen records established they were in DC on J6 – nowhere near the capitol. Clear Skies was Warrantless politically motivated spying on US citizens.
Noem is releasing records of thousands of instances of DHS acting to censor americans during the Biden administration.
The left is ranting about the weaponization of government as Trump’s appointments expose how governmetn was actually weaponized against them.
For the most part the Trump administration has been careful about criminal prosecutions.
The FOCUS is on exposing the evidence of PAST political malfeasance.
While some here and certainly lots of MAGA supporters want Willis, and James and Dugan and Ivers to go to jail – the public exposure of thier own lawlessness and hypocracy is as powerful as being fitted for orange jumpsuits.
What is important is the growing perception of the lawlessness of democrats and their willingness to do most anything to win. Not successful prosecutions.
Ta da!
OMFK, the government CAN demand a jury. A bench trial requires the consent of BOTH parties, and the court.
Government has powers not rights. A jury trial is a constitutional right, and that right belongs to the defendant.
That is wrong. Governments have rights too. And in the USA the government as well as the defendant has a right to a jury trial. To waive it BOTH must consent, and so must the judge.
“In the United States, a prosecutor cannot unilaterally demand a jury trial if the defendant waives their right to a jury trial and requests a bench trial instead. According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), the prosecution must consent to the defendant’s waiver of the jury trial, which has been held to be constitutional under Article III, Section 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments”
John, You contradict yourself. First you claim that a prosecutor can’t demand a jury trial, and then you cite FRCP, which clearly says that the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial requires the prosecutor’s consent, WHICH THE PROSECUTOR CAN REFUSE. If the prosecutor does not consent there must be a jury trial. In addition, even if both the defendant and prosecutor want to waive a jury trial, the judge can refuse.
If the source you’re quoting means to say that the prosecutor MUST consent, and has no right not to consent, then your source is a bloody idiot.
This does give significant advantages to Dugan.
But the judges determinations of law are all appealable.
And likely they are subject to interlocutory appeal.
It is extremely hard to challenge the findings of fact of a court.
I would note this is a MAJOR problem for the left in the Garcia case.
Lower courts found Garcia to be an MS13 Gang Banger and deportable.
Garcia allowed his right to appeal those decisions to expire 5 years ago, those findings of fact were near impossible to challenge 5 years ago. They can not be challenged at all today.
The reason that DOJ is NOT providing Xinis evidence that Garcia is a gang banger is because that determination has already been made and it is final as a matter of law.
If DOJ responds to Xinis’s demands for evidence beyond the lower courts FINAL determination, DOJ may open that finding up for review. That is why the growing body of evidence against Garcia is presented in public not in court.
Judge Xinis is by the rules of judicial procedure REQUIRED to accept the final and unappealed decision of lower courts that Garcia was a gang banger.
But the same is true in the Dugan case. If as is suggested Dugan opts for a trial by judge, and Adelmans conclusions of law are appealable. But his findings of fact are extremely hard to appeal,
Lower courts found Garcia to be an MS13 Gang Banger and deportable.
NO, they have not. Immigration “courts” are not courts. No court has ever heard his case .
*waive.
The government probably realizes at this point that its best chance of getting justice is by getting a different judge, which is hard to do.
In the law…
It’s too complicated for ordinary citizens.
Every Court Case is an opportunity for the Bench to show it’s true colors.
Lynn Adelman, age 85 should have met term limits due to age long ago, by that simple fact he is already showing his true colors. As well as Arthur Engoron, 75, and any Judge on the Bench over the age of 70. These Jurist that hold on to ‘The King’s Throne’ as not to be deposed beyond age 70, obviously do so for Money, Bennifits, and Status that the Commoners don’t receive. And what of the younger Jurist? They wait in patience for the attrition by death to work its timely way. Reinforcing the new King’s mind with the same demeanor.
Age Limits such as the States of:
Florida Supreme Court justices: The Florida Constitution establishes mandatory retirement at age 70.
Michigan Judges of all levels cannot run for election after passing the age of 70.
Minnesota has statutorily established mandatory retirement for all judges at age 70 (more precisely, at the end of the month a judge reaches that age). The Minnesota Legislature has had the constitutional right to set judicial retirement ages since 1956, but did not do so until 1973, setting the age at 70.[33]
New Hampshire Constitution – Article 78 sets the retirement of all Judges and sheriffs at age 70.
New Jersey Supreme Court also established mandatory retirement at age 70.
Maryland Constitution establishes mandatory retirement age of 70 for Circuit and Appellate Court judges.
Oregon – mandatory judicial retirement age of 75.
Ref.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_retirement#United_States
Lynn Adelman
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Adelman
Arthur Engoron
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Engoron
It’s not the age, it’s the attitude! Clarence Thomas is fine ,Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t. Sotomayor should be humiliated, Samuel Alito should be praised. Ergoron should be in prison. Merchan should be disbarred. Boasberg should be impeached!
Petitioner can move for a Recusal of Judge Adelman presiding on the basis of bias,/b> due to his prior association (documented relationship) with the Democratic Party and Oaths he had taken to said Party. The Motion for Recusal would at least draw attention to the fact that Judge Adelman has previous condition that predisposes the Case and could cloud judgement. [It also makes for exciting Headlines in this Case]
A Motion for Recusal is a legal document filed to request a judge be removed from a case due to potential bias or conflict of interest, ensuring a fair and impartial trial. It’s a way to challenge the judge’s impartiality and request another judge be assigned to the case.
Why is a motion for recusal filed?
Potential Bias:
A party may believe the judge has a preexisting bias or prejudice that could affect their ability to make fair decisions in the case.
Conflict of Interest:
.
A judge may have a personal or professional relationship with a party or attorney in the case, which could create a conflict of interest.
Appearance of Bias:
.
Even if a judge isn’t personally biased, their actions or statements may create the appearance of bias, which can erode public trust in the court system.
What are the grounds for recusal?
Personal Bias:
A judge’s personal opinions or feelings about a party or the case could create bias.
Financial Interest:
A judge may have a financial interest in the outcome of the case or be related to a party or attorney involved.
Prior Involvement:
If the judge has previously been involved in a related case or had a prior relationship with a party, it could create a conflict.
Improper Communication:
A judge’s communication with parties or attorneys outside of formal court proceedings (like ex parte communications) can raise concerns about impartiality.
Lack of Impartiality:
Any circumstance that suggests the judge may not be able to make an impartial decision.
How does the process work?
Filing the Motion: A party files a motion to recuse with the court, outlining the specific reasons for the request and providing evidence to support the claims.
Notice to the Judge: The judge is notified of the motion and given an opportunity to respond.
Hearing (if necessary): The court may hold a hearing to consider the motion and hear arguments from both sides.
Decision: The judge decides whether to recuse themselves or to request another judge to hear the motion.
Assignment of Another Judge: If the motion is granted, another judge is assigned to hear the case.
Important Considerations:
Timeliness:
Motions to recuse must be filed within a specific time frame, usually before the trial or hearing.
Specificity:
The motion must clearly state the grounds for recusal and provide specific evidence to support the claims.
Appeals:
An order granting a motion to recuse may not be appealed, but an order denying the motion can be appealed after the final judgment in the case.
Judicial Discretion:
Ultimately, the decision to recuse is up to the judge, and they have discretion to consider the evidence and arguments presented.
Technical b——-!
The judicial branch is as maximally corrupt as it can possibly be before good men tear it down, as the American Founders tore down the putrefied oppression of Britain in 1776.
Excellent, nicely said! Age and even term limits are the answer.
Agreed, while your response is biased to the right and to conservatives, I stand firmly with you, because it’s truth.
One of the problems with all this lawfare by the left is that you can not fix rule breaking by those in power by making more rules.
These judges are already violating the rules of civil procedure.
Most people fail to graps that most of these rules are ANCIENT. They are the result of centuries of trial and error. That tends to assure that those rules are correct and work in all cases.
We have the left ranting about due process in cases that are NOT criminal cases and do not warrant criminal due process, while the very same judges are ignoring the rules that ARE what constitutes “due process”
Boasberg is still proceeding on a case in which SCOTUS has stripped him of jurisdiction,
a Federal Judge in MA is ignoring the recent 8-1 SCOTUS decision on the AEA
Judge Xinis keeps demanding proof that Garcia is a gang banger – but that is a determination of fact made by multiple lower courts more than 5 years ago, Garcia waived his right to apeal and those conclusions of FACT are not legally final. Judge Xinis can NOT review them.
And yet we have the left claiming “due process” means getting inifinite attempts to re-address the same question. That is NOT due process.
Excellent and well said. Age and term limits are the answer or a big part of the solution to judicial malpractice.
Professor Turley, how certain are you that the selection of Judge Adelman to preside over this case was actually random?
No rhetorical questions allowed here.
Estovir – judicial immunity only shields a judge from civil liability for their decisions and rulings, not criminal liability. In layman’s terms, you can’t sue a judge for their decisions.
However, once a judge is charged with committing a crime (doesn’t matter where – her courtroom or elsewhere), judicial immunity is irrelevant because what’s at stake is not potential civil liability, but criminal liability.