Is there really nothing that can be done in our legal system in response to such selective butchery of legal procedure and case law?
I've been invested in this case from the beginning as a physician who believes that the plaintiff's standing theory is the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I've ever heard in a legal setting. But it's been frustrating to see Kacsmaryk - with impunity - disregard what seems like noncontroversial precedent or standards of civil procedure and conjure his own Frankenstein's monster of legal flimflam that somehow always works to the benefit of the plaintiffs (or their State allies, in this case).
Following up on this question, IANAL but I've never heard (in recent times) of a federal judge being removed for "bad" law/judging. To what extent is this possible? It seems that the only mechanism is impeachment. In any event, the 5th appellate court has seemed willing to follow Kacsmaryk at least part of the way, no matter how far-fetched his logic. Clear signaling from SCOTUS is just ignored, because they have their own agenda as well. The worrisome wild cards are whether SCOTUS tries to use the Comstock Act (telling Congress it's their responsibility to repeal it) or their new, shiny toy, the Major Questions doctrine.
This is activist judging at its finest. It's exactly this kind of willingness to blatantly disregard procedural and substantive requirements -- many of which were previously championed by judicial conservatives -- when doing so benefits conservative political causes that makes so many people skeptical of the conservative legal movement's goals
It's too bad there isn't a version of the 25th Amendment for federal judges.
I LOVE the "states would lose money if they had to treat patients with mifepristone issues. " It is clear that sending a woman with an unviable fetus to the ICU when she develops septic shock costs a LOT of money. And in so many states now even going into septic shock is something that some AG could think isn't REALLY a threat to the life of the mother, so the doctors, if they act at all, have to do so in fear of prosecution.
It does seem that the states' and Judge K's respect for black letter law is right up there with their respect for the black citizenry.
Leaving intervention aside, IIRC SCOTUS hasn’t been too open to States’ basing standing on gossamer premises, witness the most recent ACA case (severability). Also, and maybe I missed this, but didn’t Idaho sub out its legal work on this to Erin Hawley!s ADF, which famously reps the plaintiffs?
In the 9th and 11th paragraphs in the "It Wasn't Me" section, there are references to the proposed intervenor states as being aware of certain facts in 2003. Is it possible that's a typo and the dates should be 2023?
I don't nearly enough about law but it seems like this Judge is not a very good Judge. He seems to bend the rulings of prior cases to what he wants in order for his judgments to be ok.
Is there really nothing that can be done in our legal system in response to such selective butchery of legal procedure and case law?
I've been invested in this case from the beginning as a physician who believes that the plaintiff's standing theory is the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I've ever heard in a legal setting. But it's been frustrating to see Kacsmaryk - with impunity - disregard what seems like noncontroversial precedent or standards of civil procedure and conjure his own Frankenstein's monster of legal flimflam that somehow always works to the benefit of the plaintiffs (or their State allies, in this case).
Congress could impeach him. For obvious and unfortunate reasons, they will not
Following up on this question, IANAL but I've never heard (in recent times) of a federal judge being removed for "bad" law/judging. To what extent is this possible? It seems that the only mechanism is impeachment. In any event, the 5th appellate court has seemed willing to follow Kacsmaryk at least part of the way, no matter how far-fetched his logic. Clear signaling from SCOTUS is just ignored, because they have their own agenda as well. The worrisome wild cards are whether SCOTUS tries to use the Comstock Act (telling Congress it's their responsibility to repeal it) or their new, shiny toy, the Major Questions doctrine.
This is activist judging at its finest. It's exactly this kind of willingness to blatantly disregard procedural and substantive requirements -- many of which were previously championed by judicial conservatives -- when doing so benefits conservative political causes that makes so many people skeptical of the conservative legal movement's goals
Can a federal judge be removed for screaming incompetence?
It's too bad there isn't a version of the 25th Amendment for federal judges.
I LOVE the "states would lose money if they had to treat patients with mifepristone issues. " It is clear that sending a woman with an unviable fetus to the ICU when she develops septic shock costs a LOT of money. And in so many states now even going into septic shock is something that some AG could think isn't REALLY a threat to the life of the mother, so the doctors, if they act at all, have to do so in fear of prosecution.
It does seem that the states' and Judge K's respect for black letter law is right up there with their respect for the black citizenry.
Leaving intervention aside, IIRC SCOTUS hasn’t been too open to States’ basing standing on gossamer premises, witness the most recent ACA case (severability). Also, and maybe I missed this, but didn’t Idaho sub out its legal work on this to Erin Hawley!s ADF, which famously reps the plaintiffs?
In the 9th and 11th paragraphs in the "It Wasn't Me" section, there are references to the proposed intervenor states as being aware of certain facts in 2003. Is it possible that's a typo and the dates should be 2023?
Definitely a typo. I fixed it. My bad.
I don't nearly enough about law but it seems like this Judge is not a very good Judge. He seems to bend the rulings of prior cases to what he wants in order for his judgments to be ok.
He was appointed to appease the anti-abortion movement, who would then cheer The Trump, which is all The Trump cares about.
He was appointed because of his extreme views.