Republicans have been submitting all kinds of cases to judges they know to be unsympathetic and irrational; For example, there is the 5th District Court in North Texas, where sanity is safe to die.
A Trump judge has revoked FDA approval of an abortion pill from a federal agency he does not control.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N) is calling it a “dangerous exercise” and is pushing to end it.
In a letter sent by the leader’s press office to Politico USA, the Senate Majority Leader warned the chief judge of the U.S. District Court that “litigants can effectively choose who hears their case, undermining a free and fair trial.” David Godbey of the Northern District of Texas to reform the district court’s method of assigning cases.
Schumer highlighted the seemingly unfair math, saying, “Even though 16 grand jury cases can be heard, many parts of the district are assigned only one or two judges if a civil case is filed.” Plaintiffs have used this practice to unfair advantage to choose the circuit judges they believe will hear their cases.
The only way Republicans could get a judge strong enough to rein in the FDA without the knowledge and expertise in the case – was to get a Trump-appointed judge (who has a history).Some of them are hidden until the confirmation) very accurate activism on the issue of abortion and LBGTQ rights.
They found that man in Judge Matthew Kaczmaric, a controversial appointee with a history of hostility to the LGBTQ community and women’s health and now the only U.S. District Judge in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas.
Schumer brought up the fact that since Kacsmarky is the only judge in that chamber, any case brought there would be assigned to him. That works like selecting a good decision rather than assigning a case.
“Currently, Judge Kaczmarcki is the sole judge in the Amarillo Division and any cases thereafter will be assigned to him. Kaczmarcki has shown sympathy for the anti-abortion movement in his previous rulings, and it is clear that he was specifically targeted for that cause. His decision was unprecedented – It’s the first time a judge has taken a drug off the market over FDA objections.
Schumer went on to point out that there is no legal requirement to do so, citing a recent case in Texas that litigated marketing concerns, saying, “Last year, the Western District of Texas changed its case assignment rules for patent cases in Waco.”
The Democratic leader noted that other circuits “like the Northern District of New York — randomly assign cases among all the district judges currently serving.”
Judge shopping has gotten so out of hand in Texas that the Justice Department accused Texas of falsifying its lawsuits. Biden administration to the courts “–often in remote parts of the state–for which a single, predetermined judge is assigned most or all cases.”
It seems the opposite of justice.
of The Justice Department made this point succinctly. February 28, 2023 (edited for clarity and brevity):
The Texas Attorney General’s Office has now submitted this case to the Victoria Division to be heard by Judge Tipton: “The case is being tried in Victoria, Your Honor, because of our experience.” Hey you.”
Plaintiffs were “handpicked [a particular judge] To determine the particular case or complaint in question.
Acceptance is critical. “Judge shopping undoubtedly disrupts the proper functioning of the justice system.” Standing Comm. On the discipline of US Dist. Ct. For St. Dist. California and Yagman…
It does “opposite”.[ing] The purpose of random allocation is to prevent any party from buying judges, thereby increasing public confidence in the allocation process. Coates v. SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC.
The Justice Department has lost two “judge shopping” cases in Texas, the second being the Caxmaric abortion pill case.
The Washington Post In March, he explained how the judge trades to achieve the desired results, “In three lawsuits against the policies of the Biden administration, the attorneys general of Texas and a group of other states have filed lawsuits in rural federal courts, each of which is heard by a single judge.” Decision making on democratic governance policies. In contrast, most federal court divisions across the country include multiple judges, who are randomly assigned when a case is filed.
At the risk of repeating myself, conservatives took a literal lesson at CPAC from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on how to achieve autocracy in a free and democratic country. (The guide is intentionally misspelled, to miss the real goal.)
There are many approaches that involve the media and control education (it’s happening right now here in Florida, for example), but the biggest success is using the court system to steal people’s rights and legitimize it to give your party more power.
Back in 2018, Orbán and his ruling party have introduced a new law in parliament that poses a new threat to the independence of the country’s judiciary. The law created a separate administrative court system that deals directly with issues related to basic human rights, such as elections, the right to asylum, the right to assembly and police violence.
Cut to 2022 and Hungary is no longer considered a full democracy. The EU’s lack of decisive action has contributed to the creation of a ‘hybrid electoral autonomy’, a constitutional system in which elections are held, but there is no respect for democratic systems and standards, say MPs.
There is no respect for democratic norms and standards.
Across the US we are witnessing a lack of respect for democratic norms and standards.
Now the question is, is anyone interested in taking it before it’s too late?
Schumer’s letter is a good start and the DOJ has already been struggling, but all of these struggles must now really escalate. There is no time to wait.
**************
The full letter:
Dear Chief Justice Godbey:
I am writing to you today to urge you to reform the method of assigning cases to judges in your federal district. As the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, you have the authority to issue orders that determine how cases in your district are assigned to judges. Although the Northern District’s twelve active judges and four other senior judges still hear cases, your order mandates that civil cases brought in multiple divisions be assigned to one judge or one of a few. Cases that occur in the Amarillo Division are always assigned to Judge Kaczmaric. The cases that occurred in the Wichita Falls Division were always assigned to Judge O’Connor; And the cases in the Abelin, Lubbock and San Angelo divisions were divided between two judges. Because of your recent assignment orders, plaintiffs in your district can now effectively choose a judge to hear their case.
Incredibly, litigants use these orders to handpick district judges who are particularly sympathetic to their claims. The state of Texas itself is the most striking example. He has sued the Biden administration at least 29 times in federal district courts in Texas, but has never filed a single one of those cases in Austin, where the Texas attorney general’s office is located. Instead, Texas has always prosecuted cases and case assignment procedures ensure that a particular elected judge or one of a select few judges hears the case. That includes the Amarillo division of the Northern District, where Texas has filed seven lawsuits against the federal government. Many other advocates have done the same, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, which challenged the FDA’s approval of mifepristone.
The Northern District requires nothing to allow plaintiffs to choose their jurors in this way. Federal law divides the Northern District into seven divisions, but this is only a geographic division. The purpose of the division is to reduce travel time for judges, criminal defendants and other local litigants by allowing cases to be tried locally. Especially in the case of an electronic record, that section need not touch judicial functions at all. Other circuit courts with more rural divisions distribute civil cases randomly among all of their judges, regardless of the case. The Northern District of New York—like the Northern District of Texas—is a geographically large district divided into several divisions. But the Northern District of New York assigns all judges to all its divisions and divides all cases at random among all, no matter where the cases are. A litigant in the Northern District of New York cannot choose the judge by filing a lawsuit in Plattsburgh instead of Utica. The Western District of Missouri is the same. And the Western District of Texas last year changed its case-assignment rules for patent cases filed in Waco — apparently in response to forum-shopping cases — so that such cases are now randomly assigned among the district’s eleven active judges and one senior judge. .
The Northern District of Texas can and should rule the same for all civil cases. Currently, federal law allows each district court to decide on its own how to deal with cases. This gives courts the flexibility to resolve individual cases between their respective circuits and judges. But if this flexibility continues to allow litigants to handpick the judges they choose and effectively ensure the results they choose, Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements.
best regard
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Listen to Sarah on the PoliticusUSA Pod, the daily newspaper podcast over here.
Sarah has interviewed President Barack Obama, then-VP Joe Biden, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on multiple occasions, and she exclusively covered current President Donald Trump’s first in-house visit since his first impeachment.
Sarah is a two-time Telly Award-winning video producer and a member of the Guild of Professional Journalists.
Connect with Sarah is on PasteMastodon @[email protected], and Twitter
