Category Archives: Courts

Progressive-Democrats and Litmus Tests

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates continue to be…upset…over judicial confirmations that are going on with the Trump administration and the McConnell Senate. And they have issue-based litmus tests for what they consider acceptable (progressively so) judges and Justices. The test is in addition to their wish to change the structure of the Supreme Court to favor their ideology.

Their tests are these: the nominees must overtly favor abortion, be activists regarding the environment, and positively consider labor union matters.

Never mind that judges cannot legitimately consider these things except from within the confines of the text of our Constitution and the statute before them in any particular case. Otherwise, those matters are political items that must be determined by the political branches of our government and by Government’s employer and boss, We the People.

More: the candidates refuse to provide the lists from which they’d nominate their favored judges and Justices. They seem to lack the integrity and moral courage to do so.

In contrast, then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump published his list of judges and lawyers from which he’d draw his Justice nominees, and President Trump has drawn his Justice—and appellate court—nominees from that list.

Just to saucer and blow the matter, here’s my litmus test for judge and Justice nominees; it’s both simple and general:

  • Will you rule strictly on the basis of the text of our Constitution and of the statute before you, or will you rule on your current interpretation of what it should say?
  • Do you believe our Constitution lives through judicial rulings or that it lives through Article V and We the People?

It’s clear that Progressive-Democrats’ nominees—named or secret—would fail that litmus test.

Data Transfer and Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union’s Court of Justice had recommended to it by an adviser to the court in a particular case involving Facebook that

Companies, including US tech giants, should be blocked from transferring European users’ data in some cases if they can’t guarantee it will be handled in compliance with European Union privacy laws….

That would seem to include a large number of international companies besides ours. Yet several EU member nations are moving apace to bring Huawei into their communications networks….

Hmm….

An Appeal

Posted on by
Reply

Bayer is appealing a District court judgment against it and its Roundup product which has glyphosate as an important ingredient. The judgment is for $25 million, and Bayer thinks it’s a wrong judgment.

The German company’s main argument is that US federal agencies have determined its product is safe and not a carcinogen.

Bayer noted that the

verdict defies both expert regulatory judgment and sound science.

And

Because the EPA has consistently approved the sale of glyphosate without a cancer warning and has stated that including such a warning on the label would render the product misbranded, any state-imposed cancer warning is expressly preempted

Wow. Truth as defense.  What a concept.

Checks and Balances

Posted on by
Reply

Editors at The Wall Street Journal correctly decry a Federal district judge’s ruling that ex-White House counsel Don McGahn must testify before the House of Representatives in response to a House subpoena.  As the editors put it,

the sweeping ruling essentially eliminates a right to confidentiality between a President and his most senior advisers.

Thus:

A federal judge says White House aides must answer to Capitol Hill.

Not just any Federal judge: an Obama judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Jackson’s ruling, though, goes far beyond that.  The judge has asserted absolute supremacy of the Legislative over the Executive.

Because checks and balances only run one way. The Legislative is above reproach, and the Executive may not—has no capability to—check or balance the Legislative.

That’s the new mantra of the Progressive-Democratic Party and its supporters, even though they lack the transparency to say so out loud.

Until a judge said so out loud. Thereby also deprecating another coequal branch’s ability to check and balance the Legislative.

The Left and Judging

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has nominated Sarah Pitlyk for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Senate is about to take up her nomination for the confirmation process.

The American Bar Association thinks highly of Pitlyk’s great intelligence, high character, and experience researching and writing briefs, but it says she’s not qualified to be a judge.  After all, this textualist judge nominee

worked for the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit organization, on cases involving contract, employment and tax disputes, as well as on religious liberty and pro-life matters.

The evil, conservative Thomas More Society. And Pitlyk worked those religious liberty and pro-life cases that the Left hates so much.

It’s telling when the ABA says it does not want great intelligence, high character, and experience on the bench.

Look for a strictly party line vote to pass her nomination out of committee with a favorable recommendation and an equally party line confirmation vote.  Because the Progressive-Democrats in the Senate also do not want great intelligence, high character, and experience on the bench. Smart judges, morally strong judges, experienced judges are in the way of their agenda.