The Solution to the Trump Judge Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

[intrepidity]

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

(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.

There are other worthy ideas too. Term limits for justices and lower court judges. Limits on courts’ jurisdiction to strike down democratically enacted laws. Modest reforms that restrict the Supreme Court’s ability to suppress voting rights before an election. Let’s hear them all. (God knows Biden’s court reform commission studied them extensively, to little end.)

But the chorus from the left, the middle, and the sane right that the lawlessness is lawless only affirms that we cannot ever escape this closed loop of Trump’s judges. Being really mad but doing nothing to change things is a terrible strategy for democracy and for public confidence in the courts. It creates the illusion that if we work really hard to debunk corrupt rulings, we can force Trump judges to see the light, or feel shame, or do something different. Meanwhile, the targets of our meticulous takedowns laugh at the pains we take to prove them wrong. They. Do. Not. Care.

We get it. Lawyers are trained to lawyer. But if you are lawyering within a system you believe to be broken, or immoral, or lawless, and you aren’t standing up with meaningful fixes for that system, you are, fundamentally, acceding to that lawlessness. It is a moral victory to point out the errors, but it’s also a tacit concession that the system is, in fact, legitimate, no matter how low it may go. Every one of us is going to need to decide how long we can continue to operate that way.
(snip)

A bit more at link, but this is the gist.

[Gaugamela]

1. K&R.

[LiberalFighter]

2. I would like the federalist society exterminated.

[intrepidity]

3. I wish I could say

"there's an App for that!"

[slightlv]

4. I think we have to get a handle on the Federalist Society,

the Heritage Group, the Koch Brothers, and the numerous religious Dark Money groups, as well. Killing Citizens United would be a start. Each of these groups contribute scads of money and human resources to their evil causes (destruction of our way of life, in one way or another) and killing of democracy. When one dies, another takes over.

Once we can un-ratify Citizen United, we need to get a handle on these Super PACS and PACS. Change the regs and make transparency the rule, rather than the exception. Or get rid of them completely. IOW, go for broke and cancel the old adage that money=speech. That's one of the biggest issues we've got. It cuts people like you and me out of the political equation. "Money" does NOT equal Speech. Money=Corruption. Let's make THAT the new adage!

I understand where you're coming from with the Federalist Society. It's corruption at the highest level with one whole branch of our government - the judicial branch. But if it wasn't them, it'd be the Heritage Foundation. We have to kill them all; if you take one out, another will just step into fill the void. And the final aim is for the last group standing to be a theocratic group. We need rules hardened enough that it'll take not only money but religion out of the equation. THAT is most important.

[onenote]

5. How would "balancing" the lower courts work in practice?

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 adding judges in order to create "balance" isn't likely to fly with members of either party.