@SenSchumer writes to the chief judge of Kacsmaryk's court, telling him to

[In It to Win It]

Ian Millhiser
@imillhiser

.@SenSchumer writes to the chief judge of Kacsmaryk's court, telling him to stop letting litigants choose which judge hears their case. Letter ends with a warning that "Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements" if the chief judge doesn't act.

https://democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/following_devastating_decisions_on_abortion_lgbt_protections_and_immigration_majority_leader_schumer_pushes_to_end_contemptible_practice_of_texas_forum_shopping.pdf

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

1. KnR

[dchill]

2. Seems legit to me!

[jimfields33]

9. Seems like separation of powers.

[gratuitous]

3. The necessary preliminary

And I hope Sen. Schumer follows through with those prescriptive requirements if the Chief Judge doesn't act to clean up his District. Only wish Sen. Schumer had put a deadline on it.

[onetexan]

13. you know they'll ignore it. Schumer's fired the first shot. Next is the prescriptive requirements.

Chuck's basically telling them he's taking names.

[former9thward]

14. How would he do that?

The votes are not there.

[ck4829]

15. OK, then it's time to push things like jury nullification

There’s going to be negative consequences… for the corrupt courts… one way or another.

[gratuitous]

16. Then why waste time writing to the Chief Judge?

[former9thward]

19. Schumer didn't write him.

Durbin did. It gives a talking point.

[gratuitous]

20. Silly me

That letter to Chief Judge Godbey in the original post makes Durbin's signature look just like Charles Schumer's. He even put it on Schumer's letterhead!

[former9thward]

22. I thought you were refering to Durbin's letter to Chief Roberts.

Asking him to testify. Which was in the news. But the same answer applies.

[blm]

4. Good, proactive move.

[nuxvomica]

5. Schumer is approaching the problem correctly, of course

But it raises a bigger issue about why a particular judge is being shopped for and whether that indicates said judge might be beholden to certain interests or is blatantly prejudiced in certain directions.

[Raven123]

6. Is Schumer accurate? Will the GOP controlled House agree?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. No way. The Dem-controlled Senate may be a problem, too

Sen Feinstein will be a non-vote. Sen Manchin will not cooperate without some kind of payment.

But, Sen Schumer is smarter than me. Maybe he's already counted the votes and has it in hand.

[Raven123]

23. In the Senate perhaps, but the House is a different animal.

Let’s hope he does know something we don’t know.

[vlyons]

7. Thank-you Sen Schumer!

and if Godbey doesn't comply in a timely manner, please proceed with more prescriptive measures.

[Martin68]

10. Can the Senate accomplish that without a vote in the House?

[bringthePaine]

11. steeeeeeeeerike 1👍

[Comfortably_Numb]

12. First, fuck Texas. I know because I live here. Second, our AG is an indicted piece of shit

magat, so Texas is where logical Justice goes to die. Our brain-dead magat governor wants to pardon a racist murderous magat piece of shit. I know, magat and piece of shit is redundant.

[Fullduplexxx]

17. Seems like an empty threat

[onecaliberal]

18. Nothing will happen.

[Mr.Bill]

21. Sorry, but I'm sure the judge

will completely ignore Schumer's letter.

[dalton99a]

24. Kick

[Hotler]

25. I think we announce our strategy too much. It gives them time to plan.

Keep them rocked back on their heels more. I say just hit them with requirements and let them whine.
Need more BOOM in ya face action IMO.

[ancianita]

28. +1000

[republianmushroom]

26. Congress act now.

do it now

[Wibly]

27. Crazy notion

It is an absolutely crazy notion that anyone, plaintive or defendant, should be allowed to pick the judge they go before.
I understand having a say in jury selection, in order to weed out incompetent or biased jurors, but no one should ever be able to choose the judge.
I choose my closest friend to be my judge, not!

[mrsadm]

29. Oh yeah, that letter will surely persuade him.