Jan.15

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

The Judicial Branch Is Not Lost

U.S. Courts are facing a crisis of confidence; there's a perception that all judges are ideologically driven. Much of that can be attributed to an overtly political and ethically challenged Supreme Court, which seems to take pride in its disdain for the Court's precedents, Congress' legislative authority, and governmental institutions. But there are 861 other federal judges, as well as countless state judges, most of whom revere the rule of law and decide the myriad and difficult cases before them based on the law and the facts, without regard to politics or the president who appointed them.

Unfortunately, rogue judges, such as Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas and Aileen Cannon in Florida, get all the press. Luckily, there are plenty of examples of decisions that showcase judicial independence and adherence to the law. With memories of New Year's Day still reasonably fresh, we thought it might be a good time to offer a toast to some judges who exemplify that impartiality:

• On December 20, a Missouri state court judge struck down many of that state's abortion restrictions following passage of a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution. Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang was appointed to the bench by a Republican governor.
  
  
• On December 13, U.S. District Court Judge Sidney Stein, a Bill Clinton appointee, refused to overturn the conviction of former Democratic senator Bob Menendez, who was found guilty in July of bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice and acting as a foreign agent. "The jury's guilty verdicts were readily supported by the extensive witness testimony and extensive documentary evidence admitted at trial, and there is no manifest injustice requiring a new trial," Stein observed.
  
  
• A 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal recently dismissed a lawsuit by a parents' group claiming that their children's public school had a secret agenda to "indoctrinate" students regarding gender identity. A Donald Trump appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, writing for the majority, held that the group had no standing: "Parents Protecting seeks to pull a federal court into a range of complex and often emotional challenges on matters of gender identity, where the right policy recipe is not yet clear and the best answers are sure to come in time—through the experiences of schools, students and families." SCOTUS denied cert in the case.
  
  
• Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett, a George W. Bush appointee, held that the Naval Academy's policy to sometimes consider race in admissions does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bennett wrote that the school had "established a compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps."
  
  
• The Montana Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated its independence, despite the state's conservative politics. The Court recently affirmed a lower court's decision that overturned a state law that amended Montana's Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) to prohibit considering climate impacts in environmental reviews. The 6-1 ruling was based on Montana's Constitution, which guarantees the right to a "clean and healthful environment." Given plaintiffs' undisputed evidence of climate change's harms to Montana, the Court held that a prohibition on even examining those impacts during an environmental review violated that right.
  
  As an aside, in Montana, Supreme Court Justices are elected in nonpartisan elections, with governors appointing a new justice only in the event of a mid-term vacancy. Of the current justices, four were elected in nonpartisan elections, two were appointed by a Democratic governor and one by a Republican governor.
  
  
• Finally, in October, a 3-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, all Barack Obama appointees, angered liberal groups by ruling that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had exceeded its authority in prohibiting the registration of events contracts that would allow betting on elections. This was the first case under the Supreme Court's new standard of review of agency decisions, after having tossed out the deferential standard under Chevron. In exercising an independent review, as it is now bound to do, the Court found that the CFTC hadn't followed its own procedures in denying the registration. While the Court implied that it was in favor of regulating this type of trading, the judges nonetheless set aside their personal preferences and followed the law and binding precedent.

Note that the point here is not to endorse (or condemn) these particular decisions, just to highlight several examples (among many) of courts ruling in a manner different than their "politics" would ostensibly predict. Here's hoping that, in 2025, media attention is focused on the soundness of a court's reasoning, as opposed to the politicians who seated the judge(s). (L)