Initially, I thought the same, and I don't know the overall process. I assume that initial assignment in a multi-judge setting is via a roster. I am thinking that Glenn is referring to the fact that the Circuit Chief can "wire" the result by his/her two panel picks So instead of shopping for random District judges, you are shopping for Circuit Chiefs
I'll also note that I believe inferior courts have NO authority to review, much less approve the President's Article 2 plenary powers and responsibilities. Courts interfering in the executive branch organization and management prerogatives are, in my opinion, a clear violation of Article 2.
Correction: The gavel in your image is not anti-gravity. It is inserted into a hollow space in his pinky, which extends outward from his hand at 90 degrees. It is also resting on the vertical extension of his index finger and possibly resting on the middle fingers, which are fused together. Hope this clears up any misinformation or disinformation.
If such legislation is not carefully crafted, it could be gamed by obstructionists. 2 weeks to select the judges, a week negotiating the meeting date a month out, a flight to DC and a day to debate. To delay everything, just select 1 judge that can manufacture a “very busy” schedule.
Gamers gonna game. My wife and I have officiated for a major sporting organization for over a decade, and have seen a number of minor and several major rule changes designed to make gaming by competitors more difficult. Old rules are modified and new rules are promulgated to reduce gaming. The competitors then figure out new ways to game the rules. Wash, rinse, repeat.
gaming the system is the last 40 years of democrat party politics. look what they did to ngos and usaid and the immigration system among other things. all legal, or almost legal, and really, really screwed up, like the Hawaiian judge.
Interesting idea, and since the inferior circuit courts are a creation of Congress, Congress can change whatever aspects of those courts it sees fit to do. While Congress is at it, they might as well change the requirements for the appointment, longevity and removal of the judges. Absolutely no reason for life appointments and the same level of removal as for the President and SCOTUS justices.
That was interesting. I noticed a lot of these curbs were abolished in 1976, immediately after Watergate and just at the beginning of the Carter presidency. The Democrats removing judicial obstacles to their joyous return to power, one presumes. By all means, let’s reign in rogue judges with their sane peers. Good idea.
Why is the requirement of a bond (FRCP 65(d)) not enforced? Securing a bond for $2B of tax dollars going to suspected frauds would be impossible and preclude the district court from entertaining any TRO/Preliminary Injunction. The R’s need to dissolve the District of Columbia slaughterhouse — return the land to MD and create a new, larger federal district court there with a larger, normalized jury pool and judiciary, add 5+ conservative seats to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,and split the 9th Circuit in to CA & HA (9th) and all other states in a new 12th circuit.
We have a system where judges are never responsible for their actions. Immunity needs to be modified so that irresponsible and illegal juducial actions result in job loss.
Does legislation to this effect need 60 votes for cloture in the Senate? If so, the prospects of passing it are zero. Can it be amended into a spending bill? That would be the Democrat thing to do.
Well, a good idea and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This has become a first line tactic of the D's for many years now, and it has been very effective at slowing political momentum until they can rally the media to propagandize the public enough to prevent the R's from conducting their evil fascist raids on "democracy". What chance do you give any legislative effort to remove this weapon from their arsenal?
Like many other government improvements, such as term limits, the thief gets to vote on his own guilt. Law of self preservation wins every time and we're fooked.
Thanks for sharing this idea. That's why I follow and enjoy substack - collectively if folks would try to think outside the box - solutions might come. Even though prejudices will always be an obstacle.
The South Carolina case that was part of Brown v Board of Education went to a three judge panel. The plaintiffs lost 2 to 1. Judge Waring wrote a dissent. His reasoning was adopted in large part by the Supreme Court.
Good idea, though I’m surprised you didn’t mention Congress simply removing the inferior courts’ jurisdiction over such matters, per Art III, Sec. 2 (“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”)
Great Idea. Though I think you mean to make Judge shopping, harder.
Oops! You're right, fixed.
LOL, I defended you and you pulled a switchero
Sorry!
**
Initially, I thought the same, and I don't know the overall process. I assume that initial assignment in a multi-judge setting is via a roster. I am thinking that Glenn is referring to the fact that the Circuit Chief can "wire" the result by his/her two panel picks So instead of shopping for random District judges, you are shopping for Circuit Chiefs
Good point, and one might think that the Chiefs of the Circuits would want to stay in SCOTUS’ good graces but perhaps not in all cases.
I'll also note that I believe inferior courts have NO authority to review, much less approve the President's Article 2 plenary powers and responsibilities. Courts interfering in the executive branch organization and management prerogatives are, in my opinion, a clear violation of Article 2.
Correction: The gavel in your image is not anti-gravity. It is inserted into a hollow space in his pinky, which extends outward from his hand at 90 degrees. It is also resting on the vertical extension of his index finger and possibly resting on the middle fingers, which are fused together. Hope this clears up any misinformation or disinformation.
If such legislation is not carefully crafted, it could be gamed by obstructionists. 2 weeks to select the judges, a week negotiating the meeting date a month out, a flight to DC and a day to debate. To delay everything, just select 1 judge that can manufacture a “very busy” schedule.
Gamers gonna game. My wife and I have officiated for a major sporting organization for over a decade, and have seen a number of minor and several major rule changes designed to make gaming by competitors more difficult. Old rules are modified and new rules are promulgated to reduce gaming. The competitors then figure out new ways to game the rules. Wash, rinse, repeat.
gaming the system is the last 40 years of democrat party politics. look what they did to ngos and usaid and the immigration system among other things. all legal, or almost legal, and really, really screwed up, like the Hawaiian judge.
Interesting idea, and since the inferior circuit courts are a creation of Congress, Congress can change whatever aspects of those courts it sees fit to do. While Congress is at it, they might as well change the requirements for the appointment, longevity and removal of the judges. Absolutely no reason for life appointments and the same level of removal as for the President and SCOTUS justices.
That was interesting. I noticed a lot of these curbs were abolished in 1976, immediately after Watergate and just at the beginning of the Carter presidency. The Democrats removing judicial obstacles to their joyous return to power, one presumes. By all means, let’s reign in rogue judges with their sane peers. Good idea.
Why is the requirement of a bond (FRCP 65(d)) not enforced? Securing a bond for $2B of tax dollars going to suspected frauds would be impossible and preclude the district court from entertaining any TRO/Preliminary Injunction. The R’s need to dissolve the District of Columbia slaughterhouse — return the land to MD and create a new, larger federal district court there with a larger, normalized jury pool and judiciary, add 5+ conservative seats to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,and split the 9th Circuit in to CA & HA (9th) and all other states in a new 12th circuit.
We have a system where judges are never responsible for their actions. Immunity needs to be modified so that irresponsible and illegal juducial actions result in job loss.
Does legislation to this effect need 60 votes for cloture in the Senate? If so, the prospects of passing it are zero. Can it be amended into a spending bill? That would be the Democrat thing to do.
Well, a good idea and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This has become a first line tactic of the D's for many years now, and it has been very effective at slowing political momentum until they can rally the media to propagandize the public enough to prevent the R's from conducting their evil fascist raids on "democracy". What chance do you give any legislative effort to remove this weapon from their arsenal?
Like many other government improvements, such as term limits, the thief gets to vote on his own guilt. Law of self preservation wins every time and we're fooked.
Gotta try, no excuse for not trying. Sometimes the unexpected happens.
Creepy AI picture. But Your main point is good.
They appear to be brothers and sister, which makes it an interesting court panel!
Not only is the gavel floating, but the middle judge's hand looks funky.
Thanks for sharing this idea. That's why I follow and enjoy substack - collectively if folks would try to think outside the box - solutions might come. Even though prejudices will always be an obstacle.
The South Carolina case that was part of Brown v Board of Education went to a three judge panel. The plaintiffs lost 2 to 1. Judge Waring wrote a dissent. His reasoning was adopted in large part by the Supreme Court.
Good idea, though I’m surprised you didn’t mention Congress simply removing the inferior courts’ jurisdiction over such matters, per Art III, Sec. 2 (“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”)
A couple of specific-case-detailed examples would have been helpful to those of us who are not conversant with the legal lingo.