“Judges Become Targets in Combative Political Environment; Early court rulings against Trump provoke fury from some of president’s supporters”

authoritarian threats in US, Uncategorized

Jess Bravin for the WSJ:

Having taken the White House and captured the Congress, President Trump’s movement is unleashing its fury on the one branch of government it doesn’t fully control: the judiciary.

As more judges have blocked or slowed some of Trump’s initiatives, the president’s surrogates have been increasingly strident in their responses, casting adverse rulings as not only incorrect but also illegitimate.  

“Judges targeting President Trump are political hacks and their decisions belong in my SHREDDER,” Rep. Andy Ogles (R., Tenn.) wrote Wednesday on X.

“This is a judicial power grab. Plain and simple,” Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, said in a social-media post Friday, after a pair of judges temporarily halted mass layoffs at government agencies.

Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), who has called for impeaching “corrupt judges,” reposted a photo Thursday of U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who blocked sanctions Trump imposed on a Democratic-leaning law firm, Perkins Coie. Lee also has proposed legislation to limit federal courts’ power to rule on administration policies.

Perhaps the most aggressive has been Elon Musk, the president’s surrogate and billionaire benefactor, who has accused judges of interfering with the democratic process. “The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges,” he said in one post. 

Trump’s aggressive assertions of presidential power, and the speed with which he has imposed his agenda, have put judges on the hot seat. More than 100 lawsuits challenging Trump initiatives are moving through the courts. Adding to the tensions, Trump’s challengers frequently have asked judges to temporarily block his moves at the outset, to avert what they have argued are irreparable harms they would suffer while their cases spend months or years working through the legal system.

The attacks haven’t distinguished between judges appointed by Democratic presidents or Republican ones. Instead, the central criterion: whether a judge has been an impediment to Trump, even at an early stage of a case while legal arguments are far from a final resolution.

Ogles filed impeachment papers against Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee in Washington who last month ordered the Trump administration to restore government health websites and data sets that had been modified or taken down in an effort to scrub references to “gender ideology.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Trump appointee celebrated for cementing conservative control of the Supreme Court, recently found herself an unlikely target of the MAGA movement. She joined Chief Justice John Roberts and three liberal justices in a 5-4 vote not to intervene at Trump’s behest in lower-court litigation over foreign-aid funding. 

“Amy Coney Barrett shows the danger of Republican DEI,” right-wing personality Jack Posobiec told his 3.1 million followers on X.

Judges say the blowback won’t influence their rulings. But they fear that the messages from on high are whipping up threats and potentially violence against judges and their families. …

Share this:

“Bill Cotterell: Florida 2000 — Now that was an election”

Bush v. Gore reflections

Bill Cotterell column in the Tallahassee Democrat:

Cops, politicians and journalists sometimes use a cliche — “You can’t make this stuff up” — when they run into some novel or startling plot twists or game-changing surprises in events they’re describing.

It’s usually a bit of an exaggeration. But once, not long ago, Tallahassee was the center of a high-stakes legal drama, political struggle and media circus that defied description. And the weird thing was that everybody knew how it would end but couldn’t say so with any confidence.

A few blocks downhill from the towering state Capitol, where it all happened, Florida State University’s law school recently held a two-day conference about Bush vs. Gore. That was the case that captivated the nation for 36 days after the 2000 presidential election.

Of course, Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore by 537 votes out of more than 6 million cast statewide — and won the presidency by locking up Florida’s 25 electoral votes.

Faculty Director of the Election Law Center, Professor Michael Morley, introduces the Panel Discussion Bush v. Gore, the Right to Vote, and Election Administration on Saturday morning during the Election Law Conference.

FSU’s 25th anniversary conference brought together many of the lawyers who argued for Gore and Bush from circuit courts to the nation’s highest tribunal. Also, it included state and county elections officers who labored with Florida’s haphazard voting systems, campaign consultants on both sides and many of the political junkies infesting Tallahassee. There was also a sprinkling of fresh-faced students who weren’t born when the presidency was decided by the men and women presenting orderly, scholarly panel discussions.

The dignified academic event focused on stuff like deadlines for legal filings, the official distinction between an election “challenge” and election “contest,” the criteria for determining voter intent when a ballot was not clearly marked and the certification of results. But such arcane details couldn’t capture the rollicking adventure of the time itself. 

Laws are made with the expectation that things work well. This election didn’t. …

Share this:

“Ohio AG Must Approve Qualified Immunity Measure Summary”

direct democracy

Bloomberg Law:

Ohio’s attorney general must approve a desired summary of a ballot measure that would make it easier to sue police and government officials, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The enforcement by Attorney General Dave Yost (R) enforcement of a law that says summaries of proposed constitutional amendments must be “fair and truthful” likely violated the Ohio Coalition to End Qualified Immunity’s free-speech rights, Senior Judge James L. Graham of the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio said.

The judge’s preliminary injunction ordered Yost to immediately submit the disputed summary to the Ohio Ballot Board for review, the next step before the group can collect the signatures necessary to place its measure on this year’s ballot. The burdens imposed Yost’s enforcement of the law, which includes eight summary rejections, don’t justify the imposition on the group’s free-speech rights, Graham said.

“As applied, the Attorney General’s denials of plaintiffs’ summaries reached a level of hypercorrectness which went beyond ensuring that citizens could ascertain what they were being asked to support,” Graham wrote, adding that Yost “has played the role of an antagonistic copyeditor, striking plaintiffs’ work on technical grounds.”…

Share this:

“A still-unresolved North Carolina court election is back before judges next week”

judicial elections, recounts

AP:

A panel from North Carolina’s intermediate-level appeals court will hear arguments next week about a still-unsettled November election for a seat on the state’s Supreme Court.

The March 21 hearing by three judges on the Court of Appeals was announced Friday, the same day the court rejected a request by incumbent Supreme Court Associate Justice Allison Riggs to have the entire Court of Appeals consider the matter now instead.

After recounts and election protests, the registered Democrat Riggs leads Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million ballots cast in their race for an eight-year term on the highest court in the ninth-largest state.

While The Associated Press declared over 4,400 winners in the 2024 general election, the North Carolina Supreme Court election is the only race nationally that is still undecided.

Share this:

“Trump calls his opponents ‘scum’ and lawbreakers in bellicose speech at Justice Department”

authoritarian threats in US, Department of Justice

Politico:

President Donald Trump on Friday walked into the Department of Justice and labeled his courtroom opponents “scum,” judges “corrupt” and the prosecutors who investigated him “deranged.”

With the DOJ logo directly behind him, Trump called his political opponents lawbreakers and said others should be sent to prison.

“These are people that are bad people, really bad people,” the president said in a rambling speech, during a section when he was condemning both the people who directed the withdrawal from Afghanistan and those he falsely accused of rigging the 2020 election. “The people who did this to us should go to jail.”

In remarks that were by turns dark, exultant and pugnacious, Trump vowed to remake the Justice Department and retaliate against his enemies.

It was, even by Trump’s standards, a stunning show of disregard for decades of tradition observed by his predecessors, who worried about politicizing or appearing to exert too much control over the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency. Trump, instead, called himself the “chief law enforcement officer in our country” and accused the DOJ’s prior leadership of doing “everything within their power to prevent” him from becoming the president.

Share this: