Author Topic: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders  (Read 242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Timber Rattler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,853
  • Conservative Purist and Patriot
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-crisis-supreme-court-trump.html

Quote
Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical affects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.

The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.

EXCERPT

Waaah!  They just don't like SCOTUS rolling back their unconstitutional overreaches.
aka "nasty degenerate SOB," "worst of the worst at Free Republic," "Garbage Troll," "Neocon Warmonger," "Filthy Piece of Trash," "damn $#%$#@!," "Silly f'er," "POS," "war pig," "neocon scumbag," "insignificant little ankle nipper," "@ss-clown," "neocuck," "termite," "Uniparty Deep stater," "Never Trump sack of dog feces," "avid Bidenista," "filthy Ukrainian," "war whore," "fricking chump," "psychopathic POS," "depraved SOB," "Never Trump Moron," "Lazarus," and "sock puppet."

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."  ---George Orwell

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,950
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
How many of the 65 Judges were Democrat appointees?
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,924
EXCERPT

Waaah!  They just don't like SCOTUS rolling back their unconstitutional overreaches.

Exactly.

Quote
. . . the Supreme Court’s  .  .  .  emergency orders  .  .  .  have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

To avoid confusion, all these judges need do is to set their political biases aside and issue rulings based on federal law and the Constitution of the United States of America.  And their unwillingness to do so is the reason their public image is tarnished.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.     -Dwight Eisenhower-

"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."     -Ayn Rand-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,924
How many of the 65 Judges were Democrat appointees?

Sixty-five.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.     -Dwight Eisenhower-

"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."     -Ayn Rand-

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,511
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Want some cheese with that whine?
The Republic is lost.

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64,277
I'm concerned about federal district judges in far-flung states under the false impression that they control the military, the executive branch, and just about about everything else that eminates from D.C.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,365
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Consider the source of this article.

Then flip things around 180 degrees...

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64,277
Tom Fitton
@TomFitton
BREAKING: Three dozen federal judges violate basic judicial ethics canons in attacking Supreme Court anonymously in NYTIMES.  (These judges don't like having the Supreme Court curtail their abuses of judicial power.) This judicial insurrection against constitutional governance deserves the strongest possible response from the federal judicial ethics tribunal and Congress.
4:48 PM · Oct 11, 2025

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,715
These judges are saying:

Do not stop each of us from being the king of this country as I am unelected for life and know what is best for this country.

This country needs a healthy increase in impeachment and removal of judges acting outside the law
« Last Edit: October 11, 2025, 08:29:10 pm by IsailedawayfromFR »
“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.” Thomas Sowell