Once again. I answered your question.
You fail to address mine at all.
Good day, sir.
No, all you’ve done now for the last dozen posts or so is avoid giving us a straight answer.
I think for a good many of them, it is just that.
It certainly isn’t for the power, particularly not if you are just a District Judge.
A United States District Judge is not confronted with high profile decisions that often, either in the case of high profile issues such as abortion or high profile defendants such as Roger Stone. Greater than 99.99% of a District Judge’s cases are highly mundane in nature. Drug defendants, bank robbers, criminals of every stripe, but mundane all the same. Intellectual property cases that ride on highly arcane rules of construction. The endless flood of criminal habeas petitions. Highly complicated civil cases, many that ride on State law.
And in that less than 0.01% of cases that presents a high profile or defendant, your decision is subject to review and reversal at the appellate level.
And even as an appellate Judge, you are just one of several. Even Scalia was humbled by the limitations he was subject to by having to compromise to get to 5 votes.
If you are looking to go on a power trip, the last job I would suggest is United States District Judge or even United States Circuit Judge.
I would suggest President of the United States. That actually has raw power.
Rationalization does not equal motive.
I almost missed this. Until a judge issues an edict.
How about we remove 4.4% of the communist judges immediately? How about that?
1 Like
Oh, and let’s not forget that the job security is second to none.
1 Like
Which, particularly under modern circumstances, I am very thankful for.
That statement applies equally to your position. Your rationalizations are certainly no more valid than mine.
Judicial rulings are not an imposition of power. They are a restrain of power illegally wielded.
I wasn’t speaking of yours.
Now there’s an interesting statement. What should my reply be?
It’s harder to fire the average federal employee than it is to remove a federal judge from the bench.
That’s a bad case of butchery of the language.
If a single federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction stopping the president they are by any definition wielding great power.
They can be overturned at the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
And in any event, before the end of this Supreme Court term, the ability of District Judges to grant nationwide injunctions will be greatly narrowed, if not eliminated entirely.
Correct but until they are that’s by any definition an exercise of great power.
I was pretty impressed by the recent scathing rebuke of the judge in the border wall case for overstepping.
They need to set some clear guidelines legislatively and through judicial rulings to rein that power in for good.
A federal judge is subject only to impeachment and conviction.
Federal employees (other than Principal Officers or Inferior Officers) are subject to a process managed by the Merit Systems Protection Board. They can be difficult to remove, but clearly NOT harder to remove than a federal judge.
But again, it is always used in restraint of great power.
I do NOT agree with nationwide injunctions on principle, but as a whole, Judges are not NEARLY as powerful as Sneaky thinks they are.
You never hear the names of most federal judges. The reason you don’t is that most will go through their entire career on the bench having not exercised any high level of restrain against the federal government or the President.
Most federal judges toil in relative anonymity and handle mundane tasks. They are not the demi-gods Sneaky thinks that they are.
And the process to fire them can take years by the time a firing is finalized.
At least with federal judges they can be removed for cause at least theoretically even quicker.
