Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sideswiped by the Judge
President Trump will be on the Colorado ballot. That’s the determination in the case where some Democrats and NT Republicans sought to have Trump banned under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists from public office.
That’s the good news. The bad news? According to the Associated Press —
A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol….
Huh? The judge says Trump is an insurrectionist, but he can still be on the ballot?
In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact “engage in insurrection” on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys’ arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. Normally, that would be enough to disqualify him under Section 3, but she said she couldn’t do so for a presidential candidate.
Section 3 does not specifically refer to the presidency, as it does members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Instead, the clause refers to “elector of President and Vice President,” along with civil and military offices.
“Part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three,” the judge wrote in the 102-page ruling.
So, even granting the plaintiff’s most favorable understanding of the facts, the law does not grant them the remedy they requested. That is the standard for summary judgment in favor of a defendant. But the judge held a multi-day hearing with witnesses arguing about Trump’s conduct, whether he called for peaceful demonstrations, whether he offered up the national guard that Pelosi declined, whether his failure to tweet out to demonstrators to leave the capitol (as opposed to his tweets for them to respect law enforcement) was evidence of culpability, and so on and so forth. And then the judge rules that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the remedy they sought.
In other words, the hearing was totally unnecessary. It was only conducted to give voice to NT propaganda. The judge permitted the hearing because she sided with the plaintiffs on the facts (shaky as they are) because she shares the political bias of the plaintiffs and wanted that “case” out there for the voters. But then, dear me, she just couldn’t grant the plaintiffs the remedy they sought because, you know, the law. (She knew ruling otherwise would get the case overturned on appeal.)
So she did the next best thing: You can’t appeal the public rantings of the judge when she rules in your favor. She can inflict pain without recourse.
Published in Election 2024
Didn’t Chief Justice Marshall do something similar in Marbury v. Madison? I.e. do a lot of opinionating after which he said it didn’t matter in the case before him?
From the facts you give, it seems that the only proper response is an investigation of the judge and discipline appropriate to the misconduct if the facts are confirmed.
In that case, to me it seems that disbarment is the minimum reasonable punishment. It would be a deliberate, malicious abuse of power and violation of judicial ethics with known, major harmful consequences to the People.
Fair comment, but arguendo they were establishing the legal principles of Court power as opposed to having a clear path to a summary judgment under settled law.
There seems to be a lot of that going around: it’s fashionable these days.
Yes, that’s what Marshall did, but how do people square that with the principle that the SC rules only on case law and doesn’t offer up other abstract opinions (like judges will do in France, for example).
In case you can’t tell, I have had no legal training. So I’m sure there are a lot of things I missed. But in the American Government class I had in college we had to read some opinions from Swischer’s Historic Decisions of the Supreme Court. I was annoyed at that class because the professor didn’t lecture on anything except Supreme Court decisions, and one of them was of course Marbury v. Madison. Ever since I was a little tyke I had been wanting to learn about the ways in which we’ve made progress in preventing abuse of people by the government, and no government class I ever had or heard of at any level went into that.
The process is the punishment.
And the judge should be sanctioned to the tune of whatever the defense costs were, at least. Maybe the “prosecution” costs as well.
Personally. Out of her own paycheck/retirement/etc.
But of course judges protect themselves from responsibility by inventing “judicial immunity.”
their black robes are a joke
Unless viewed as executioners…
Yes, English system (which we inherited) uses stare decisis rather than simply divining the outcome based upon subjective application by a judge of code law. Stare decisis simply means that the application of law should be the same or very similar whenever a dispute is the same or similar from other disputes in the past. This lends predictability at the expense of genius. Dutiful study of the law and prior cases and precedent should make a legal dispute outcome predictable when tried by a judge. There are two types of precedent — controlling and persuasive. A subordinate court must follow the law set out by a superior court, but in the absence of controlling precedent a court may be persuaded to follow the example of another court in a different jurisdiction that faced the same or similar facts and operates within a system that observes similar norms.
We also don’t pass laws then retroactively make an act a criminal one. What we have is even worse. The corrupt FBI and DOJ retroactively made Trump guilty of taking his documents, used fictitious accusations of criminal activity to get a general warrant, also unconstitutional, and did so without even retroactively altering the law. They knew this would not stand up in court so the actual indictments didn’t mention the PRA.
I will obey our laws but I will not have any respect for the federal government. It is rotten to the core. The federal government doesn’t care if we respect it, just wants obedience as its humble servants.
RICO all of these clowns and Garland and Biden too. The judges, prosecutors, lawyers — every player on the team executing Biden’s command to rid himself of this turbulent priest.
If I may I would like to share a few thoughts based, in part, on a lifetime in trial work and getting to know how the systems of all of the related institutions really function. First, and I note my agreeement with the idea that she should be disciplined for her unethical, unprofessional and certainly injudicious behavior in spouting off all these political beliefs of hers which had absolutely nothing to do with the merits vel non of the case before her, none of that will ever, in this world or the next, happen. Second, the reason it will never happen, and please excuse me for stating the obvious, is that those who are theoretically charged with “Judging” her conduct are her close friends who also wear the black robe. Third, who will make the complaint? Not the side of the case which won the decision. A representative of the Judicial Council of the State of Colorado (or whatever its proper title is in that state)? Theoretically possible maybe in some states, but Colorado? The analogy of a snowball in hell comes to mind. Fourth, these remarks may not be the basis of any kind of complaint as they were clearly dicta, completely irrelevant to the merits of the case or any motion before her. As the incredibly popular song by Oliver Anthony “Rich Men North of Richmond” concludes:
Sideswiped? Rear-ended!
Couldn’t even the winning side make a complaint against the judge for basically saying “I’d like to find you guilty and I think you are but I can’t?”
It probably won’t happen, but it should, and judicial accountability has happened in other situations. One of the most recent I’m aware of being some Family Court judges in West Virginia.
It should happen a lot more often.
I recommend following The Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube. He has the most detail on cases in West Virginia, including some of his own, since that’s where he’s based. But he covers cases in other locations too.
Here are the videos I found regarding the biggest Family Court issues. I think I found them all, but he doesn’t use the same words in all the titles/descriptions so I may have missed some. As you’ll see, these matters began at least 3 years ago.
I’m making them “clickable” rather than “embedded” because there’s so many. These are in chronological order, oldest first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0IDL8ll2x4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-2o0PVLQtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1iEzOcgLvg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT2ljRsk2kQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcabh_aG7dg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCCzz2KLoH8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdaI9VyWR_o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J53Fc0IBazc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lDKeygN_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmrLQOhTdgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVZFUiXkCEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9duAPB9SwI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOGxOLokjj4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozX2yBZiQoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyxkQXCr5tA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7f6uevARno
and finally, a compendium of WV judge antics: (some of the Family Court stuff will be in there too, I think)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDKvkrC8df4
He’s also done some videos on problems with the West Virginia State Police, if you like I’ll gather those links but they seem to be easier to find on his channel. He’s more consistent with titling those.
I’ve found some other favorite videos on Junkyard News although he seems to have stopped posting new material since being “demonetized” (why create content that only YT gets paid for by ads?) and James Freeman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcXPPi8yuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB0i2asMOBM
Wait a minute. JG says this is in dicta. Dicta are not findings. The AP misrepresented the result. Of course.
I found another video that I missed earlier, it follows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdaI9VyWR_o
in the original list, and I’ve added it there where it should go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J53Fc0IBazc
As I recall, the thing I found most disturbing about this installment was the bailiffs indicating they would do it again even knowing it was wrong/illegal.