Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NewHendoLib

(60,014 posts)
Tue Sep 6, 2022, 10:16 PM Sep 2022

worth reading - Slate "The Solution to the Trump Judge Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About"

BY DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN
SEPT 06, 20225:20 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/trump-judge-aileen-cannon-court-reform.html


Legal analysts lit up social media on Monday in response to the broad and potentially devastating order by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee to the Southern District of Florida, temporarily halting the criminal investigation of the former president and his alleged pilfering of classified documents. Her order further authorized a special master to identify and return the small fraction of materials seized in last month’s court-approved search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence that may belong to him. One analyst after another meticulously detailed the failings of Cannon’s reasoning: It was “untethered to the law,” “a political conclusion in search of a legal rationale,” “deeply problematic,” “laughably bad.” At some point, one truly runs out of euphemisms for lawless partisan hackery.

It’s possible to agree with every one of these criticisms but still find them less than satisfying. Because at the end of the day, no matter how much withering criticism she faces, Cannon still gets to put on the black robe and run interference for her benefactor. She will still get a standing ovation at some future Federalist Society gathering. She remains in control of this case. But it’s not just Cannon: Many smart lawyers also noted that the Justice Department now faces the unenviable task of having to appeal this decision up to higher courts that are filled with Trump appointees, which takes the sting out of the opprobrium: For all we know, the Trump-stacked 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or five radical justices on the Supreme Court may also greet her outrageous decision with a standing ovation.

So the problem is not just the extreme and heinous flaws in Cannon’s ruling. It’s also the Trump-shaped world in which Cannon operates, with impunity, which we will all have to endure for the foreseeable future. It’s the brutal reality that we may face a steady stream of depraved decisions like Cannon’s for the rest of our lives—and the pain of hearing from every quarter that nothing can be done to remedy it.

snip

There are solutions out there for the problem of Trump’s runaway judges. Expanding the courts—even just the lower courts—is the most bulletproof. Congress has periodically added seats to the federal judiciary from its inception to help judges keep up with ever-ballooning caseloads. Today’s litigants (who are not named Donald Trump) often face yearslong court delays. The Judicial Conference, a nonpartisan government institution that develops administrative policies, has begged Congress to add seats to the lower courts. Some Republicans have supported the idea in recognition of the crisis facing our understaffed judiciary. Letting Joe Biden balance out far-right courts like the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which will weigh Cannon’s ruling if the government appeals—would go a long way to tame the jurisprudence of Trumpism. When district court judges know their radical decisions will be overturned on appeal, they may be less likely to swing for the fences in the first place.

snip - much more.

Well worth reading it all - it lays out what we are up against.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
worth reading - Slate "The Solution to the Trump Judge Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About" (Original Post) NewHendoLib Sep 2022 OP
K&R! Thanks for posting! Rhiannon12866 Sep 2022 #1
I like this idea. crickets Sep 2022 #2
14 would be a good number -- assuming we're thinking of the same "higher court" Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2022 #3
I was thinking 13 to match the number of appellate courts, crickets Sep 2022 #5
Alright, alright, I'll compromise. 15 and that's my final offer. :D Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2022 #6
You drive a hard bargain, but... crickets Sep 2022 #8
It needs to be an uneven number to prevent deadlocks. So 15 works! ShazzieB Sep 2022 #9
Why not 25? SlimJimmy Sep 2022 #10
Ok, I'll tell Uncle Chuck, you tell Nancy (she's scary). Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2022 #11
Kick dalton99a Sep 2022 #4
Want Democracy? Bayard Sep 2022 #7
Thanks for posting! k&r alwaysinasnit Sep 2022 #12
Bookmarking liberalla Sep 2022 #13
I could not agree more. Dahlia Lithwick knows what she is talking about. SunSeeker Sep 2022 #14
✔️✔️✔️✔️ live love laugh Sep 2022 #15
They need an immediate solution - not one that is years down the road. kentuck Sep 2022 #16
How would "balancing" the lower courts work in practice? onenote Sep 2022 #17

crickets

(25,980 posts)
2. I like this idea.
Tue Sep 6, 2022, 11:02 PM
Sep 2022

It sounds reasonable, even necessary. Why stop with the lower courts? I can think of a higher court that needs a little expansion as well.

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,346 posts)
3. 14 would be a good number -- assuming we're thinking of the same "higher court"
Tue Sep 6, 2022, 11:10 PM
Sep 2022

14 would make it very unlikely that a future Moscow Mitch could subvert the court.

SlimJimmy

(3,180 posts)
10. Why not 25?
Wed Sep 7, 2022, 01:02 AM
Sep 2022

That's what the repukes will do when they control Congress. Did anyone think this through?

SunSeeker

(51,557 posts)
14. I could not agree more. Dahlia Lithwick knows what she is talking about.
Wed Sep 7, 2022, 01:14 AM
Sep 2022

These fucking district Court judges like Aileen Qannon are LIFETIME appointments. She is only 41! This problem is not going away. We must address this now.

onenote

(42,703 posts)
17. How would "balancing" the lower courts work in practice?
Wed Sep 7, 2022, 07:46 PM
Sep 2022

The authors suggest that "Letting Joe Biden balance out far-right courts like the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which will weigh Cannon’s ruling if the government appeals—would go a long way to tame the jurisprudence of Trumpism." But how would that work. This is current make-up of the 11th circuit: 1 GWB, 1 Clinton, 3 Obama, 6 Trump, 1 vacant. So 7 Repubs, 4 Democrats, 1 pending Biden nomination. So how many judges should be added to allow Biden to "balance" the court? Two (leveling the R-D divide)? Five (giving Biden the same number as Trump, but also giving the Democrats a 10-7 advantage?

And what about a court like the First Circuit, which currently has 3 Obama, 1 Clinton, 1 Biden and 1 Biden pending. A 5-0 Democratic/Republican split. If a vacancy occurs, should Biden be barred from naming a replacement? How do you achieve "balance"?

Similarly, the 2d Circuit has 1 GWB, 1 Clinton, 2 Obama, 5 Trump, 4 Biden (with a Biden nominee pending to replace the Clinton nominee). IF the GWB appointee or one or more of the Obama appointees leave, and Biden replaced them, then wouldn't that unbalance the court even further?

In short, there are good arguments for increasing the number of judges on certain courts because of a caseload backlog. But basing the number of added judges in order to create "balance" isn't likely to fly with members of either party.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»worth reading - Slate "Th...