Corporate Media Fans Hysteria

Have you heard what Donald Trump did? He fired the Rule
of Law, and then nuked Article III through the power of his
words. Lovers of liberty, Donald Trump is coming, Trump is
coming. Or, perhaps hysteria and delusion have set in.
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,   
The people will waken and listen to hear   
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,   
And the midnight message of Chuck Todd.
(Longfellow)

NBC News political director Chuck Todd made an appearance on Morning Joe Tuesday, championing the federal judiciary.

Tracing his lineage to Gutenberg, Todd offered to take criticism emitting from Donald Trump against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel on behalf of the "press," warning Trump should stop saying mean things about federal judges such as Curiel.

Trump is "eroding the rule of law," ... "eroding trust in the judiciary," warned Todd. "That's a slippery slope."

Todd didn't specify the darkness to which the slippery slope leads, but his comments follow by days the hysteria of Adam Liptak and the New York Times in similar grandiose posturing regarding the judiciary and the rule of law.

As a historical figure, surly Todd has studied in some detail the American judiciary and its oppression of American citizens who sometimes look to the judicial branch when, most commonly, individual states target Constitutional rights of disfavored swaths of the citizenry.

Have not noticed Todd defending civil liberties against incursions from the Republican-ruled red states. Or for that matter from the Federalist Society's approved federal judges who carry out the intentions of the Koch brothers and the Bradley Foundation.

Libel Law

Should we be concerned Donald Trump will loosen federal libel doctrine as Trump once blustered. No. How would Trump accomplish this? Trump didn't say, and neither has Todd, the Times nor the Post. [In February, Trump said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," (The Politico)].

Trump is hardly the first politician to express dissatisfaction with, or to venture the outlines of a bone-headed argument against New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).

Federal Judiciary Deserves No Trust

Perhaps Todd could cast his gaze at the United States Supreme Court. Immigrant families face a more present danger from rightwing judges as they await word whether the corrupt and ideologically bankrupt U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's attacks will carry the day in United States v. Texas, (No. 15-674) (Denniston, SCOTUSBlog).

Hanen and his ilk are human garbage. Much more dangerous than the ravings of the whiny and incoherent Donald Trump.

Federal litigants face a roll of the dice in the federal judiciary. Nothing better.

Meanwhile, the farce of the American electoral process continues, with no alarm sounded by Chuck Todd and the New York Times, (CounterPunch).

Morning Joe Tuesday, June 7, 2016

NYT Finds an Independent Judiciary and Rule of Law

Update: Think federal judges cannot be the problem? Meet Andrew Hanen, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, (SCOTUSBlog, Ballotpedia).
---
Here I was thinking corruption, ideology and cold-blooded dogma define the federal judicial branch, citizens litigating in federal court are at the mercy of a shake of the dice.

Adam Liptak and his editors at the New York Times have declared in the news columns that not only do we have an independent judiciary and the rule of law as defining features of the judicial branch, but Donald Trump, he of the many incoherent and bigoted rants, is a threat to same.

At least we enjoy an independent judiciary; that's a relief.

If a reader looks near the bottom of Liptak's some-1,800-word piece, she can find this: "Many of Mr. Trump’s statements about legal issues were extemporaneous and resist conventional legal analysis."

Still, Trump's candidacy is a threat. Interesting.

And no legal scholars were available for knocking down the thrust of Liptak's piece.

Here I am mistakenly thinking Trump is an unpolished lunatic but reflecting the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Thanks for sounding the alarm that Trump is something different, Mr. Liptak; was not aware how independent and incorruptible federal judges are.

Nor was it clear how vulnerable the judiciary is to the ravings of Donald Trump.

Hysteria Against Trump Requires Turning Away

Update: Think federal judges cannot be the problem? Meet Andrew Hanen, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, (SCOTUSBlog, Ballotpedia).

Why would any American not defend the inherent right of Donald Trump to give voice to the vitriol and hate behind his movement?

It's because the liberties animating a non-authoritarian politics face determined enemies across the political spectrum in the American political culture.

The substance of anti-Trump arguments, such as there exists substance, suggests implicitly or explicitly a denial of Trump's right to excoriate a federal judge such that the denial promotes a greater social good.

For example, as one line of reasoning goes, because Trump's view are racist, Trump no longer enjoys the right to voice his views.

This reasoning should require no further comment, but this is the USA and defense of liberty usually stops at the bumper sticker or comment below the political column.

Right Wisconsin's Charlie Sykes offers a more nuanced and equally absurd take: Because Trump is a candidate for the presidency of the United States, Trump no longer retains the right to criticize a federal judge. Writes Sykes:

Reflect on this for a moment. A candidate for president of the United States using his pulpit to personally attack a federal judge presiding over litigation involving that candidate’s fraudulent business practices. At best, it was yet another petulant outburst; at worst, it was intended to bully and intimidate the judge, perhaps an attempt to push him to step down. In either case, Trump is using his political position to try to derail his own day in court.

And yet, we are told, this is the man we will should trust with the future of the judiciary?

The tyranny of the judiciary is long documented in America, but one case ought to suffice to goad political commentators in considering Trump's rights vis a vis the federal judiciary, and the question how exactly is Trump bullying and intimidating Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California?

Sykes doesn't say, but all he references are the absurd rants of Trump which, if Sykes were more rigorous, he would recognize as no departure from the neo-facsist Repulbican Party. [Note: Trump's silly remarks amount to: Because Trump has proposed a wall between Mexico and the U.S., and the mass deportation of Mexican immigrants, (presumably without due process in Trump's view), the Mexican "heritage" of Judge Curiel is a disqualification of Curiel's impartiality in hearing federal litigation involving Trump.

Sykes on the other hand argues that because Trump as the presumptive Republican Party nominee is arguing his position publicly as a component of his presidential campaign, Trump is improperly impugning the impartiality of the judiciary branch. Both are ludicrous positions, but Trump as well as Sykes retain their First Amendment rights to state their positions, irrespective to the soundness and rigor lacking in both arguments.]

United States v. Dellinger et al

As to that one case, consider the 1969-1970 indictment, trial and convictions, (along with a mistrial), of peace and social justice activists in United States v. Dellinger et al, overturned on appeal, (472 F.2d 340; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6620; 22 A.L.R. Fed. 159) (February 8, 1972, Argued; November 21, 1972, Decided).

The Chicago Eight were peace and social justice activists who faced prosecution for allegedly violating federal Anti-riot Act, (18 U.S.C.S. § 1821), and a host of other ludicrous charges steaming from protests at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Party Convention. Ironically, the Anti-riot Act was a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

The defendants were David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bobby Seale, John Froines and Lee Weiner, all of whom were friendly to or intimately associated with the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, MOBE, to name one conspiring organization, "others identified in the record being Professor Sidney Peck, Western Reserve University, Professor Donald Kalish, University of California at Los Angeles, Msgr. Charles O. Rice, Pittsburgh, and Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Atlanta. Rennie Davis, aged 28, was MOBE's Project Director for these activities and set up an office in Chicago." (NexisLexis).
 
These activists continually ridiculed the presiding U.S. District Judge Julius Jennings Hoffman, and the U.S. Attorney Thomas Foran.

The defendants were ultimately vindicated, legally and morally.

Now, if say George McGovern or Edmund Muskie had ridiculed Judge Hoffman as an imbecile and a fascist as part of their campaigns for the presidency, would McGovern and Muskie had been accused of bullying and intimidating the judiciary branch? Of course not.

Or would McGovern and Muskie's complicity in bullying behavior be dependent on whether McGovern and Muskie were directly party in federal litigation involving Judge Hoffman? If you believe what Charlie Sykes writes.

Sykes and others' are ludicrous positions, as is the failure to call for the rights of Donald Trump as part of one's own political commitment.

In America hysteria is usually more popular than history. I'll have to look and see if the federal Anti-riot Act, (18 U.S.C.S. § 1821), is still around, because not a few would like to see the provisions used against Donald Trump.