Chief Justice Roberts Was Right About One Thing: There are no "Trump Judges"

Trump--appointed Judges consistently rule against President Trump in election cases.

In 2018, Chief Justice Robert declared, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." In election case after case, Trump appointees have proved the Chief was right about something.

Today, a unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel turned away L. Lin Wood's emergency appeal to enjoin certification of the Georgia election results. Chief Judge Bill Pryor wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judges Jill Pryor and Barbara Lagoa. Yes, the same Judge Lagoa who was on the super shortlist for the RBG seat. And you may recall that Pryor was on the super shortlist for Justice Scalia's seat.

Yesterday, another unanimous Eleventh Circuit panel denied relief in Sidney Powell's "Kraken" suit. Judge Andrew Brasher wrote the majority opinion. Trump had appointed Brasher to the District Court and to the Eleventh Circuit. He was joined by Judges Wilson and Rosenbaum.

Yesterday, Judge Brett Ludwig, a Trump appointee to the Eastern District of Wisconsin expressed serious concern about another Trump case. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that Judge Ludwig "told an attorney for the president he was asking for 'pretty remarkable declaratory relief' by asking to have the fate of Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes decided by the Republican-led Legislature instead of voters.

Last week, a unanimous Third Circuit panel rejected President Trump's emergency appeal in a Pennsylvania case. Judge Bibas, one of Trump's first circuit appointees, soundly ruled against the President who appointed him. He was joined by two other W. Bush nominees, Chief Judge Smith and Judge Chagares. (Jon Adler wrote about the opinion here.)

I'm sure there are other cases I missed. But you get the idea.

Last term at the Court, Justice Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ruled against the President in Trump v. Vance, the New York tax return case. Well, nominally ruled against him at least: they still declared their independence.

For a generation, self-interested critics will deem Trump-appointed judges as illegitimate by association. Trump will have attainted them! At least during the final year of the Trump presidency, the new appointees have faithfully followed their oaths.

Comments

[MollyGodiva]

Not entertaining baseless election fraud suits is a very low bar to claim that there are “No Trump judges”. Only time will tell if the judges that Trump picked off the Federalist Society list will be honest judges or partisan hacks.

[Bill Poser]

I would distinguish between “Trump judges”, in the sense of judges who are loyal to Trump and his particular ideology, insofar as he has one, and judges appointed by Trump, who have generally conservative views of the issues and certain philosophies of law and interpretation of the Constitution. There are not doubt quite a few of the latter, but decisions such as these suggest that there are few of the former.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The right is just starting to learn it gains nothing by abandoning its own. Something the left has operated on for the last 50-60 years which is why they have dominated politics for the last half of the 20th century.

If you want some historical precedent, just look at the criticism of Roe before it was brought or many of the more extreme civil rights pushes. Those were widely denounced as having no basis in law. However, because the left circled the wagons around their own, we now not only have them as law but some will call cases like Roe “super precedent.”

Should federal judges be installing Trump as President? No. But if the script was flipped and this was Biden, fill those seats with liberal judges and they would be keep the suits alive, raising questions, and pushing the various legislatures (especially if dominated by their party) to select the electors.

[MollyGodiva]

It is an absurd statement to say if the script were turned somehow the Ds would be even more partisan then the Rs. There is zero evidence that that would happen, and the fact that it did not happen in 2016 is good evidence that you are full of it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is far from absurd which is probably the very reason why you offer no evidence to support your statement of the absurd.

[Allan L.]

And yet, there is her evidence, starkly and compellingly stated in black and white. Your cavil is another chink in your sparse armor.

[Kazinski]

Most “Democratic” judges are professional and honest, but I was disappointed in the number of “resistance” judges and their attendant national injunctions that surfaced over the last 4 years.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you’re going to make a tu quoque argument to justify your call for misconduct, you really ought to wait until the tu has actually quoque’ed.

[Kazinski]

There is just no way for the Trump legal team to prevail in these lawsuits because they haven’t developed the evidence to show even by a preponderance that that the election was swung by fraud.

I doubt they ever will be able to prove that, but I am fraud curious. The best way to proceed is for the GOP legislatures in WI, MN, PA, GA, AZ should use their oversight powers to order a thorough audit of the elections in their states. Such an audit is justified just by the fact that this is the largest instance of mail in voting in most states and we need to insure that the election was conducted properly. AZ and GA also have Republican governors in case legislation is necessary to conduct those audits, and they should be conducted independently of the SOS office, which might be conflicted. I also doubt that most of the Democratic governors would veto a non-partisan audit of the elections in their states, that would look pretty bad.

[MatthewSlyfield]

The evidence may be there now for Georgia, but that won’t be enough to change the outcome of the election.

[Allan L.]

These cases aren’t much of a test of the proposition.

[Sidney r finkel]

Really?

The cases before these judges are so weak, so lacking in even the appearance of serious litigation, so devoid of even basic legal tenets that even the most partisan judge could not rule in favor of Trump. The idea that these cases are a test of prejudice in the Trump appointed judges and Justices is ludicrous.

It is far too early to determine if Trump and McConnell have succeeded in corrupting the judiciary so that political positions and preferences override the accepted legal structure. But time will probably be on the side of seeing political positions prevail in court rulings. And before anyone writes the typical attack on a personal basis instead of a factual one, consider how outraged you would be if this was the Dems openly and without shame stating that they were stacking the courts with partisan judges.

[captcrisis]

Yet another post that Josh should not have posted because it was so easily refuted.

[The Grand Moff Tarkin]

And if the Dems win the Georgia runoffs, those 4 or 6 new Supreme Court Associate Justices won’t be Biden Justices.