Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/30/2026 2:20:37 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
One judge Wednesday defended his and other colleagues’ decision to speak publicly to the New York Times as “well within the ethical rules.”
The Justice Department filed judicial misconduct complaints against all but one of Minnesota’s active federal judges Wednesday, calling recent media interviews they gave discussing the impact of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown in their state evidence of partisan bias and a “threat to the rule of law.”
The complaint, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for 8th Circuit, based in St. Louis, targets judges appointed in both Democrat and Republican presidencies, including at least one whom President Donald Trump appointed during his first term. Officials also called for the judges to recuse themselves from any pending or future litigation involving the Department of Homeland Security.
One of the judges immediately defended his comments, saying it was “well within the ethical rules” for the jurists to speak out.
The move marks the latest escalation in a conflict that has dominated the administration’s relationship with a coequal branch of government since the start of Trump’s second term. The president and others have repeatedly verbally attacked judges who have ruled against them or halted aspects of the White House’s agenda, prompting rare public statements from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who recently said such personal invective “has got to stop.”
Outlining the Justice Department’s complaint against the Minnesota’s judges at a news conference Wednesday, Attorney General Todd Blanche pointed to a Sept. 17 article in the New York Times, in which seven members of the state’s federal bench gave rare interviews on the impact of last winter’s immigration crackdown, known as Operation Metro Surge.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Democraps and their stooge-judges are a “threat to the rule of law”.
And this is exactly why the Constitution gives federal judges life tenure.
The Slimes September 17 article has been archived in readable form....
<> Trump’s Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns
Its also why Judges either recuse or are disqualified from cases related to their public comments.
Sounds like you're in favor of the "piles of dogsqueeze" stooges appointed by the "'Craps", Boob...
Do you have trouble figuring out what a woman is also, like your retard heroine, affirmative action pest Jumanji Brown Jacksome.
Judges must be judicious Bob. No comments on cases before them; no political statements while wearing robes. As a card carrying Democrat you should know this.
Yes you are correct Bob Wills but subject to the following:
Fifteen federal judges have ever been impeached by the House of Representatives, and eight of them were subsequently convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
“The move marks the latest escalation in a conflict that has dominated the administration’s relationship with a coequal branch of government since the start of Trump’s second term. The president and others have repeatedly verbally attacked judges who have ruled against them or halted aspects of the White House’s agenda, prompting rare public statements from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who recently said such personal invective “has got to stop.””
Yet no one had a problem with Obama doing it.
Go to the top of my homepage and follow the instructions: https://freerepublic.com/~epluribusunum/index
Was it their “criticism”, or was it their coordinated response to deportations or illegal aliens taken into custody that was the subject of the DOJ complaint? I’ll have to go look for the exact wording.
According to the NYTimes article, the judges weren’t making rulings based upon the law but instead on their feelings about Trump and deportations altogether.
Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges tells judges not to make public comment on the merits of pending or impending matters and to avoid statements that could reasonably be expected to affect fairness or create an appearance of bias.
Here is the complaint:
Here is the DOJ press release:
Imagine a new Constitution Amendment written to restrain the power of Federal judges. My suggestion? A Circuit Court for each state where the individual states determine who the judges are and how they can be removed. The decisions of any Federal Court would only apply to that state alone. The Court of Supreme Whim could step in when Federal law became too balkanized.
I goofed I was wrong. Way wrong.
Judge’s expressing bias?! Say it ain’t so.
The actual complaint by the DOJ clearly and logically lays out their reasoning, unlike the WaPoo article.
Thanks for the link.
“The actual complaint by the DOJ clearly and logically lays out their reasoning, unlike the WaPoo article.
Thanks for the link.”
You’re welcome. Having read the NYTimes article when it first came out, I knew the complaint was based on more than just criticism.
I wish more people would read the actual documents rather than the slanted and very biased reporting from the media. There is a reason sites like WaPo don’t link to the docs themselves. They don’t want people to be truthfully informed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.