Judges, lawyers describe perils of attacking judiciary at Grand Teton National Park gathering

Judges, lawyers describe perils of attacking judiciary at Grand Teton National Park gathering: Legal professionals attending a Wyoming conference look to citizens to stand up for safety and independence of judges.

Limiting Jurisdiction.

The House passed legislation on Wednesday that would bar federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, part of an escalating Republican campaign to take aim at judges who have moved to halt some of President Trump’s executive orders.

The bill, approved mostly along party lines on a vote of 219 to 213, would largely limit district court judges to issuing narrow orders that pertain to parties involved in a specific lawsuit, rather than broader ones that can block a policy or action from being enforced throughout the country. It would make an exception in cases that were brought by multiple states, which would need to be heard by a three-judge panel.

The New York Times. 

 

Trump Bans Northern Arapaho Tribe's Law Firm From Federal Contracts

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. . . The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. . . The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

Chief Justice John Roberts reacting to putative chief executive Donald Trump demanding impeachment of a judge who disagreed with him, as they often due due to his contempt of the law.

Standing for the rule of law. Hagen Scotten.

 

Standing for the Rule of Law. The letter of Danielle R. Sassoon.

What if Trump Just Ignores the Courts?

Lex Anteinternet: Biden proposes changes to the framework of American government.

Lex Anteinternet: Biden proposes changes to the framework of America...:  

Biden proposes changes to the framework of American government.

 Joe Biden, in an op ed in the Washington Post (a poor way to make major proposals, in my view) proposed some major structural changes to the framework of U.S. governance today.  The proposals are:

1.  A Constitutional Amendment making it clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.

2.  Term limits for Supreme Court Justices such that a President would appoint a justice every two years for a term of 18 years on the Court.

3.  A binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

On these, fwiw, I think a Constitutional Amendment would be justified, but I'd go further than what's stated.  I don't support any kind of immunity at all.

On term limits, I don't support that either, but would support age limits.  Once a Federal Judge reached age 60, or at least no older than 65, they'd be required to retire, including members of the Supreme Court.

On a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, it's a good idea, but I don't know how you impose one, given the independence of the judiciary.

The Jury.

The entire time I've been a lawyer. . . well, no, well before that, I've been told that one of the "greatest" things about "the world's greatest judicial system" is that it uses juries.

Most legal systems do not, and those that do, have tended to pick it up from the English Common Law system, often through American influence.  Save for Louisiana, we use the English system, and the English system has long used juries.  

The system has evolved over time.  Originally it was an effort to gather those from the area where an event occured, and was truly a jury of peers. The danger was that they actually knew you, and therefore may be inclined to judge your guilt or innocence based on that, which was part of why it was conceived of as a good system. Over time, while it was still supposed to be a jury of your peers, they were picked, through the voir dire process, for their fairness.

I'm not about to say that juries always get everything right. They don't.  But lawyers are taught to respect the process and the juries, and for good reason.  Frankly, more often than not, juries are right.  Not always, but holding them in contempt is wrong.

The jury that found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies this past week in Manhattan was made up seven men and five women, and included two attorneys, a software engineer, an e-commerce sales professional, a security engineer, a teacher, a speech therapist, an investment banker and a retired wealth manager.   That is a highly educated jury, and frankly that probably truly is a jury of Trump's peers.  Leaving two lawyers on the jury is bizarre, as lawyers only rarely make a jury panel, although I've known one who did.  I've been called for jury duty once and did not get picked, as I didn't expect to be.  Having two lawyers on the panel is phenomenal.

It'd be interesting to know how that occured.  Trump's defense team may have thought that the lawyers would regard the charges as strained in regard to election interference, which a lot of legal analysts did.  They may have, instead, helped the jury wade through the piles of stuff they had and arrive at the conclusion which they did.

Anyway you look at it, they arrived at the opinion they arrived at, and that needs to be respected.

Which Wyoming's elected officials are not.

The jury has been slammed by all of our Congressional delegation, two of whom are lawyers, the Governor and the Secretary of State.

It's tragic.

Wyoming makes frequent recourse to the courts as a state, and now it's attacking the judicial system.  There's utterly nothing whatsoever to question the nature of this jury on.  It appears to have been well qualified for its role.  There's no reason to suspect that New York's legal system is deficient in any way.

It's inexcusable to attack the jury.