Well... the Fifth Circuit will continue to make terrible, unconstitutional rulings, but at least they won't get to pick and choose.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
437 points (99.5% liked)
News
23300 readers
3478 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Almost seems like we need an actual candidate for president to stop this nonsense
Biden it is!
America never fails to surprise me, you get to choose judges for a case?? Is judiciary a joke? Lol
You're not supposed to be able to choose a judge like this, judges are supposed to be assigned at random our of the pool of trial judges in the district. But the problem is that some districts are subdivided further, to the point where the pool in the subdivided area consists of one judge, and you can guarantee a trial goes to that judge simply by finding someone to file who lives in the right zip code.
I don't know if it's still true, but there was a time that a lot of companies owned assets in East Texas because the judges (mainly T. John Ward) there were so friendly to patent trolls. A friend of mine did technical work for one of the law firms involved in TiVo vs. Dish. One company is headquartered in California, the other in Colorado. Where was the lawsuit? The Eastern District of Texas.
It's more of a loophole in certain jurisdictions. Judges are usually assigned randomly, but some districts have divisions with only one sitting judge.
The federal judiciary is divided into 94 different geographic districts, which normally encompass either all or part of a state. In many districts, newly filed cases are assigned randomly. So, for example, if a plaintiff files a lawsuit in a district with three Democratic appointees and three Republican appointees, they would have an equal chance of drawing a judge from either party (although some judges are partially retired and have a lighter caseload).
Some districts, however, have used different rules to assign cases — and one very notable example is the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas. That district, like some others, is subdivided into multiple “divisions,” some of which only have one sitting judge. Any civil case filed in one of these Northern District of Texas divisions was automatically assigned to one judge: Kacsmaryk.
So this new rule will try to close that loophole.
Yes. Yes it is.
Yes, 45s classified documents case is being handled by the legal equivilent of the three kids in a trench coat, that he appointed to the district his cases would be heard in. Between the mishandling of evidence, accidental release of the names of wittnesses and inability to stick to established protocol, im amazed they havent been thrown off the case or disbarred.
You're giving "Judge" Cannon way more benefit of the doubt than she deserves. Everything she's done has been calculated and deliberate to torpedo the case and help Trump.
There is no benefit of doubt from me, the problem is that the judicial system is hesitant to punish one of their own. Expecially when the most recent appointees are on-board with the malpractice. Hanlon's razor is how I normally try to view things and it is deeply concerning that it does not apply here.
And that's after she's already (clearly erroneously) ruled in Trump's favor in a previous case. It's absurd that they were able to get her again.
The issue is that the federal courts are divided into circuits, and each circuit handles cases from multiple states. So there’s not a single centralized federal court (except the SCOTUS, of course.) And the fifth circuit is basically balls to the wall crazy conservative. So if you can get your trial heard by the fifth circuit, it will land in front of a wildly conservative judge who won’t even try to maintain the image of impartiality.
The fifth circuit just so happens to take cases from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This means that the two extremely conservative states (Texas and Mississippi) have been able to leverage the court to challenge pretty much any left-leaning laws they want.
The fifth circuit courts can’t override the SCOTUS or go against any precedents set by higher courts. But if they’re hearing fresh arguments on new laws with no settled precedent, then they have first crack at setting the precedent. And if you’re in the fifth circuit, they will set an extremely conservative precedent. And that forces lower courts to follow them, unless it gets overruled by the SCOTUS.
So basically, let’s say you’re a conservative and Biden just enacted a law you don’t like. You sue in Texas, landing you in the fifth circuit. The fifth circuit rules in your favor. Then the SCOTUS refuses to take the appeal, (because they’re busy and this particular law isn’t worth their time,) meaning the fifth circuit precedent stands. Now the law is effectively nullified in the entire country, without even being ruled on by the SCOTUS.
There are other similar examples, but the fifth circuit is the most widely known. For instance, there’s a judge in east Texas who had historically been very friendly to patent trolls. So if you’re a patent troll with a bogus patent that never should have been granted, and you’re looking to sue a company for infringement, you’d sue in east Texas. Because any other court would throw your case out and nullify your patent. But that one particular judge is friendly, and he’s the only one in the area (because east Texas is extremely rural, and doesn’t have enough population to support more than one judge,) so you know you’ll get a friendly judge.
In the 1990s it was suing porn producers from LA in places like Oklahoma because the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is decided by local standards. So asshole prosecutors changed the locale to get a win.
It is important to remember that despite the recent use of judge shopping by conservative groups this is a thing that is done by liberal groups too. And had contributed to the increasing lack of trust in the judicial system. This is a good change in judicial policy and was not done by either the Democrats or Republicans. It was done by the judges themselves.
That is for the best.