Here’s how the game works.
In Trump’s first administration, radical federal judges just issued rulings blocking government actions. As the second term admin has been more aggressive about pursuing Supreme Court interventions, federal district judges are issuing frivolous rulings intended to barrage SCOTUS with a constant need to intervene.
And that’s followed by complaints to the media that the Supreme Court is seizing too much power and undermining the judiciary.
Call it the ‘Cloward-Pivening’ of the federal court system.
Back in September, a dozen judges complained to NBC News. Anonymously.
Now the New York Times has topped that with ‘three dozen federal judges’ attacking the Supreme Court.
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.
What’s happening here is a cynical political game in which federal judges coordinate with leftist activist groups like the ACLU and issue massive amounts of highly dubious rulings that the fairly small Supreme Court has to cope with and then they complain that the rulings are “opaque” and “confusing”.
Of course those rulings wouldn’t be necessary if those same judges allowed them to properly proceed instead of issuing their own emergency blocks based on their moods and politics.
The “emergency docket” keeps being used to block their emergency blocks. And then they go to the media and complain that they just don’t understand why the Supreme Court won’t let them usurp presidential authority.
“In interviews, federal judges called the Supreme Court’s emergency orders “mystical,” “overly blunt,” “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.” One judge compared their district’s current relationship with the Supreme Court to “a war zone.” Another said the courts were in the midst of a “judicial crisis.”
Wait. They’re both “opaque” and “overly blunt” and also “mystical.” Plus “demoralizing”.
At a hearing in September, Judge James A. Wynn Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said his court was “out here flailing” as it tried to apply vague emergency rulings from the Supreme Court that left judges “in limbo.”
Wynn is an Obama appointee. (Surprise.) And the case was another of the coup Administrative Procedures Act which are at this point over 90% illegitimate efforts to use FDR era codes meant to allow the public to protest bureaucratic overreach to block presidential actions.
“They’re leaving the circuit courts, the district courts out in limbo,” Wynn protested . “We need to understand why you did it. We judges would just love to hear your reasoning as to why you rule that way. It makes our job easier. We will follow the law. We will follow the Supreme Court, but we’d like to know what it is we are following.”
How about “stop abusing the APA to block any Trump move you don’t like.” This was a case in which a government union was suing to block government reforms by the administration on APA grounds.
Wynn isn’t actually confused. Neither are any of the other judges trying to Cloward-Piven the Supreme Court. They’re trying to shatter the oversight of the Supreme Court in order to block an elected administration from fulfilling its promises.
