Judiciary thread

[Vrede too]

I've never been comfortable putting these posts in the LEO or Supremes threads.

Trump Taps His Own Criminal Defense Attorney For Lifetime Federal Judgeship
Democrats tanked Joe Biden's pick for this U.S. appeals court seat out of cowardice. Now Trump is nominating Emil Bove, his hatchet man at DOJ.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit covers PA, NJ, DE and the Virgin Islands. There are currently 6 Dem and 6 GQP (4 Dolt .45) appointees. 2 seats are vacant. In many cases the 2 Shrub appointees will have all the power.

Bove has been awful in his few months at DOJ.

[Vrede too]

Wholly unqualified candidates? Exclude the experts who will say so. It's the MAGA way.

Pam Bondi Locks Bar Association Out Of Vetting Trump’s Judicial Nominees
America's main legal organization “no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications,” said Trump's attorney general.

... A number of Trump’s judicial picks earned embarrassing “not qualified” ABA ratings in his first term, which is likely another reason why Bondi is shutting out the group.

How can we forget Trump’s former judicial nominee Brett Talley? The then 36-year-old lawyer and former paranormal activity investigator tweeted about Hillary Clinton being “rotten” and said his solution to the Sandy Hook shooting massacre “would be to stop being a society of pansies and man up.”

There was Matthew Petersen, then a 36-year-old lawyer who couldn’t answer basic questions about law in his confirmation hearing and was basically shamed into withdrawing his nomination. Jeff Mateer, then a 52-year-old lawyer who described transgender children as evidence of “Satan’s plan” and endorsed gay conversion therapy, was withdrawn too.

Some of Trump’s past judicial nominees did get through, though, despite being rated “not qualified.” Sarah Pitlyk, then a 42-year-old lawyer and former clerk to then-D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was unanimously rated “not qualified” because of her “very substantial gap” in trial or litigation experience.

“Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. She has never examined a witness,” reads Pitlyk’s ABA review in 2019. “Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.”

Republicans still confirmed her to her seat on a U.S. District Court in Missouri.

There was also Lawrence VanDyke, then a 46-year-old lawyer and former solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana. The ABA interviewed 60 people in its evaluation of VanDyke, including 43 lawyers and 16 judges. It found that his colleagues “would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community.”

“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” reads the particularly brutal ABA review of VanDyke in 2019. “There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.”

VanDyke cried during his Senate nomination hearing when these details were read back to him. Still, despite the ABA’s findings, Republicans confirmed him to his current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Beyond any lingering grievances Trump may have against the ABA from his first term, he may also just be straight-up retaliating against the group for condemning his brazen attacks on federal judges and on the rule of law itself.

In March, the ABA president issued an unusual statement criticizing unnamed Trump administration officials for making “repeated calls for the impeachment of judges who issue opinions with which the government does not agree.”

“There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear,” Bay said. “We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar?”

“Who will speak for the judiciary?” he said. “Who will protect our system of justice? If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?”

Fascism is here.

[neoplacebo]

Looks like trump is heading for a big letdown.....seems like the only reason the appeals court issued a stay on the trade court ruling is the trump administration attorneys PUT IN WRITING THAT IF THEY EVENTUALLY LOSE ON APPEAL THE TARIFF MONEY WILL BE REFUNDED. Lawrence O Donnell explains it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawrence-odo ... 16945.html

[GoCubsGo]

Looks like trump is heading for a big letdown.....seems like the only reason the appeals court issued a stay on the trade court ruling is the trump administration attorneys PUT IN WRITING THAT IF THEY EVENTUALLY LOSE ON APPEAL THE TARIFF MONEY WILL BE REFUNDED. Lawrence O Donnell explains it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawrence-odo ... 16945.html

LOL

Does anybody believe they'll give the money back even if ordered?

[neoplacebo]

Looks like trump is heading for a big letdown.....seems like the only reason the appeals court issued a stay on the trade court ruling is the trump administration attorneys PUT IN WRITING THAT IF THEY EVENTUALLY LOSE ON APPEAL THE TARIFF MONEY WILL BE REFUNDED. Lawrence O Donnell explains it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawrence-odo ... 16945.html

LOL

Does anybody believe they'll give the money back even if ordered?

Hard to say what this insane outfit will do. I just thought it rather a desperate move to include such a statement in their request for a stay. trump lies multiple times a day but it's still generally frowned on when attorneys lie to judges. As trump is fond of muttering...."we'll see what happens."

[GoCubsGo]

Hmmmm....

[Vrede too]

Hmmmm....

https://bsky.app/profile/rachelbitecofe ... vg3mznck2u

You got my attention.

Florida Bar complaint accuses Bondi of ‘misconduct’ as US attorney general
The complaint says Bondi’s actions “threaten the rule of law and the administration of justice.”

During her Senate confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi tiptoed around whether she would stand up to President Donald Trump’s pressure on the Justice Department, promising only in a broad sense that “politics has to be taken out of this system.”

Since her confirmation in February, Bondi has earned the praise of conservative Republicans for loyally following Trump’s agenda while drawing the wrath of critics on the Democratic spectrum who say she has politicized the Justice Department on issues ranging from illegal immigration to public corruption.

Now, a liberal- and moderate-leaning coalition of about 70 law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices is attacking Bondi’s record in an ethics complaint filed Thursday with the Florida Bar. They accuse Bondi of violating her ethical duties as U.S. attorney general, saying she has committed “serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.”

The complaint claims Bondi “has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of ‘zealous advocacy’” that she espoused in a Feb. 5 memo to all agency employees on her first day in office.

The complaint further says Bondi threatened agency lawyers with discipline or termination if they failed “to zealously pursue the President’s political objectives,” alleging her conduct violates Florida Bar rules and long-standing norms of the Justice Department.

LAW, as usual:

... Justice Department chief of staff Chad Mizelle said in a statement provided to the Miami Herald on Thursday. “This third vexatious attempt will fail to do anything other than prove that the signatories have less intelligence — and independent thoughts — than sheep.”

Bondi’s role in firings

The coalition’s complaint accuses Bondi — the 59-year-old former Florida attorney general and state prosecutor in the Tampa area — of playing a central role in the improper firings and resignations of numerous government lawyers during her four-month span at the helm of the Justice Department....

‘Zealous advocacy’

According to the Florida Bar complaint, Bondi’s “principal ethical violation arises from her perversion of the concept of ‘zealous advocacy’ into an overriding campaign, individually and through Messrs. Blanche, Bove and Martin, to coerce and intimidate the lawyers they supervise into violating their ethical obligations.”

In each of the three examples, Bondi and her senior team “ordered Department lawyers to do things those lawyers were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination — or fired them for not having done so,” the complaint says....

“Since her first day on the job, Pam Bondi has made clear that she plans to use the Department of Justice for political pursuits, and she has done just that,” said Norm Eisen, executive chairperson of the Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit legal advocacy group in Washington, D.C. Eisen is the former ambassador to the Czech Republic during the Obama administration.

Trump’s executive power

... after more than 50 years, the Justice Department’s wall of independence from the White House was officially torn down in July 2024.

In n historic 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump was generally immune from criminal liability for his official acts — including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden.

The court’s conservative majority found that “the President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’” under Article II of the Constitution.

Bondi pledges Justice Department won’t be weaponized

... She concluded by warning that anyone who “refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration ... or impedes the Department’s mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination.”

Good on the coalition! Disbar her! ETTD

Comments under the post:

Fuck the Far Right!‬
She herself is a violation of ethics rules.

I’m convinced lawyers and judges will save our democracy.

I mean in general life has been pretty shitty under 47 but today has been glorious.

Honor your oath of office or resign.‬
Pretty funny watching Musk, Bannon and TACO.
Capitulation Comes With a Price
Bending the knee to Trump will cost you.

May they succeed

But does she even care?

She thinks she is protected

She has no ethics at all.
I Could Be Wrong.

Throw the book at her.

damn if florida thinks you suck that is a very low bar lol

More at the link.

[Vrede too]

Is this the correct thread?

TACO DonOLD loses again!

Judge blocks Trump’s election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach

She sided with the Constitution, not the Dems.

A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general had argued the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” ...

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Hero.

... Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

“Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people," New York Attorney General Letitia James said.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

, always.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

... many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections....

Casper the Friendly Judge