1. #1

    Possible No More Judge Shopping

    In a move on Tuesday, Federal Courts have made a new policy that would require a random judge be selected for cases that would impact a larger area than a local area.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...2770e587&ei=24

    Federal courts move to restrict 'judge shopping,' which got attention after abortion medication case

    Federal courts moved Tuesday to make it harder to file lawsuits in front of judges seen as friendly to a point of view, a practice known as judge shopping that gained national attention in a major abortion medication case.

    The new policy covers civil suits that would affect an entire state or the whole country. It would require a judge to be randomly assigned, even in areas where locally filed cases have gone before a single judge.

    Cases are already assigned at random under plans in most of the country’s 94 federal district courts, but some plans assign cases to judges in the smaller division where the case is filed. In divisions with only one judge, often in rural areas, that means private or state attorneys can essentially pick which judge will hear it.

    The practice has raised concerns from senators and the Biden administration, and its use in patent cases was highlighted by Chief Justice John Roberts in his 2021 report on the federal judiciary.

    Interest groups of all kinds have long attempted to file lawsuits before judges they see as friendly to their causes. But the practice got more attention after an unprecedented ruling halting approval of abortion medication. That case was filed in Amarillo, Texas, where it was all but certain to go before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump who is a former attorney for a religious liberty legal group with a long history pushing conservative causes.

    The Supreme Court put the abortion medication ruling on hold, and is hearing arguments on it later this month.

    The new policy announced by the U.S. Judicial Conference after its biennial meeting would not apply to cases seeking only local action. It was adopted not in response to any one case but rather a “plethora of national and statewide injunctions,” said Judge Jeff Sutton, chief judge of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and chair of the Judicial Conference’s executive committee.

    “We get the idea of having local cases resolved locally, but when a case is a declaratory judgement action or national injunction, obviously the stakes of the case go beyond that small town," he said.

  2. #2
    Herald of the Titans D Luniz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The Coastal Plaguelands
    Posts
    2,927
    Good, far to often cases are getting dropped in East Texas for no reason beyond "the judge is crazy rightwing"
    "Law and Order", lots of places have had that, Russia, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq.
    Laws can be made to enforce order of cruelty and brutality.
    Equality and Justice, that is how you have peace and a society that benefits all.

  3. #3
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,247
    Honestly don't know enough about the legal process to say good or bad. Seems fair. Removes the possibility of political maneuvers from influencing rulings. On the other hand I would prefer a judge familiar with the issue I'm taking to trial to rule over my chance than a random one. In an ideal world they all would be equally qualified to rule over any case, but that's not that actual case.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  4. #4
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Honestly don't know enough about the legal process to say good or bad. Seems fair. Removes the possibility of political maneuvers from influencing rulings. On the other hand I would prefer a judge familiar with the issue I'm taking to trial to rule over my chance than a random one. In an ideal world they all would be equally qualified to rule over any case, but that's not that actual case.
    I would say the chance of a judge being prejudiced, and intentionally being sought out for that prejudice to leverage it against one side or the other, is higher than a judge being somehow unfamiliar with the case at hand.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  5. #5
    Hmm, Interesting? So the Judicial Conference of the United States which is chief judge of each judicial circuit will decide this. I did not know that the Chief Justice of Scotus calls the meeting or they just meet. In the article Roberts mentions this so perhaps he called for it to be fixed.

    My cynical take before this was that this was never going to get fixed, cause of once more politics. This seems pretty HUGE in the context of judge shopping which is an abuse of the system. The article mentions the case but refuses to talk about the hack Texas judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  6. #6
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,037
    While this would be nice, I somehow suspect it wont pass. Even if it does, somehow I suspect enough damage has been done that this is actually to Republicans benefit.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  7. #7
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    While this would be nice, I somehow suspect it wont pass. Even if it does, somehow I suspect enough damage has been done that this is actually to Republicans benefit.
    It actually might pass. The people who are deciding it are high on the totem pole for the judicial system, and they're the ones who end up having to clean up the messes when people judge shop to get a ruling that has so many appealable holes in it that they're pretty much forced to hear the case. While currently the high profile examples of this are Republican, this one is something that legitimately everyone with the capability to do it is doing, and it is a major resource drain on the system.

  8. #8
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,672
    Damn. No more discounts or deals on justice. I guess inflation really does effect everything.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  9. #9
    Hmf...a little late for Roberts to delay, defray, derail, SCOTUS political commitment.

  10. #10
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ing-rcna143405

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Thursday criticized a move made by the federal judiciary to restrict the practice of "judge-shopping," an approach conservative lawyers have recently used in high-profile cases in an effort to find a sympathetic jurist.

    McConnell said on the Senate floor that the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the judiciary, was effectively siding with Democrats, who have complained about conservative groups and Republican attorneys general filing contentious lawsuits in single-judge divisions.

    "This was an unforced error by the Judicial Conference," McConnell said. "I hope they will reconsider."

    He suggested that district courts could resist applying the new policy.

    "I hope district courts throughout the country will instead weigh what is best for their jurisdictions, not half-baked 'guidance' that just does Washington Democrats’ bidding," he said.

    Recent examples of judge-shopping include several cases filed in Texas, including the conservative bid to overturn federal approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. That was filed in Amarillo, where it was guaranteed the judge would be Matthew Kacsmaryk, a former conservative legal activist appointed by then-President Donald Trump.

    The new policy, announced this week, would ensure that any cases seeking to block state or federal policies in federal district courts would be assigned randomly from larger pools of judges.

    Some conservative judges have already criticized the move. It was described as a "good idea" by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a conservative judge on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who chairs the Judicial Conference's executive committee.

    McConnell complained that the move does not address a real cause of concern: that judges are increasingly issuing nationwide injunctions that block federal policies. This happened increasingly frequently during the Trump administration and has continued during the Biden administration.

    The new policy will disproportionately benefit Democrats, McConnell said, although he did not explain why.

    "This will have no practical effect in the venues favored by liberal activists, but Democrats are salivating at the possibility of shutting down access to justice in the venues favored by conservatives," he added.

    Under the new policy, the potential panel of judges in Democratic-leaning states would most likely be liberal, but the pool of judges in most Republican-states would likely be conservative.

    The difference is that lawyers will not be able to pick a specific judge.
    Mitch the bitch is crying that Republicans favorite tactic of weaponizing their politicized judiciary will be considerably less effective if they can't shop their lawsuits in front of friendly judges they've installed around the country.

    Which is about one of the strongest endorsements for this move that one can get.

  11. #11
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,037
    This whole fucking shitshow of Republicans treating anything that comes down from above that they disagree with as "guidance" or "suggestions". Thats not how any aspect of governement works, and then the DOJ having to file a fuckton of suits to get people to FOLLOW THW FUCKING LAW.

    These folks dont need to end up on the south end of a civil suit, they need to be stripped of their positions and jailed, like any of the rest of the country would be when they look at a cop and go "Naaaah, this law doesnt apply to me."
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  12. #12
    Republicans push back on new federal court policy aimed at ‘judge shopping’ in national cases

    To nobody surprise, Republicans oppose this.

    “I hope they will reconsider. And I hope district courts throughout the country will instead weigh what is best for their jurisdictions, not half-baked ‘guidance’ that just does Washington Democrats’ bidding,” he said.
    Gawd I love Republicans and going to miss McConnell, well if he is retiring. This mofo and his party who have abused the judge shopping just wants to state that cases happen organically in that jurisdiction. The best as usual he project that it is the Democrats who are abusing this. I LOVE him so much!
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  13. #13
    Would be nice if the US didn't have politically elected everything like most of the rest of the world and a law that wasn't up to interpretation (another archaic relic from Britain)

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    Republicans push back on new federal court policy aimed at ‘judge shopping’ in national cases

    To nobody surprise, Republicans oppose this.



    Gawd I love Republicans and going to miss McConnell, well if he is retiring. This mofo and his party who have abused the judge shopping just wants to state that cases happen organically in that jurisdiction. The best as usual he project that it is the Democrats who are abusing this. I LOVE him so much!
    That's because if they want something banned nationwide for instance, they always go to some moronic judge in Texas.

    I think it is this one that they used to ban Mifeprsstone. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...0cc31cc892d605

  15. #15
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,063
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    That's because if they want something banned nationwide for instance, they always go to some moronic judge in Texas.

    I think it is this one that they used to ban Mifeprsstone. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...0cc31cc892d605
    You mean the guy so conservative, so against anything progressive, he's still rallying against new fangled things like "Fire" and "The Wheel"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •