Yikes. That sounds like “if you want to try anything like this in front of me again, you’d better pack your toothbrush”.
Clearly this judge is irreparably biased. The lame duck Congress should be able to push through an impeachment post haste, although I do not see getting 2/3 of the Senate to remove him. Still…lessons must be taught! /snark
Furman will not sanction DOJ only because it would create an appealable issue. You can appeal a sanction, and he does not want to get distracted…
Furman is clearly going to do his best to write an appeal proof order. He will make findings of fact based upon the evidence that is not before the Supreme Court, then detail how the additional evidence further supports his order. DOJ is freaking out, because they know that with the record before Furman, he can stick it to them for lying in a way that would make it impossible for the US Supreme Court to reverse unless they want to make it manifest that they are punking for Trump. Roberts does not want to do that at this stage, as he does not want well respected law professors and commentators to openly call him a partisan hack. (Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas clearly will, not sure yet on Kav).
Plus, the Democrats will use the order as a rallying cry to cut funding for the question.
Typical activist judge.
- Isn’t taken in by the facade of legal reasoning
- Isn’t looking for an excuse to help the powerful stay in power
- Remembers legal misdeeds from more than 30 seconds ago
I assume Trump will call for a “2A remedy.”
“Defendants’ motion makes so little sense, even on its own terms,”
My God! It’s spreading.
Glad to hear the judge ripping the DOJ apart. Those fools think they are so clever. Judges do not like to waste their time.
OR, the Supreme Court makes a ruling that the only thing that can be considered or questioned is the official, administrative record, period. And therefore the case is reversed as not being an adjudicable (that’s probably not a word) question and the Census Bureau (and every other agency) can do whatever the hell they want to do.
That would be a terrible precedent going forward, but the conservatives rely on liberals actually “caring” about their decisions, so it shouldn’t be TOO bad. And, besides, as soon as Conservatives are back in control, they can reverse everything anyway.
sigh
Terrible precedent is terrible precedent and the SCOTUS and other members of the judiciary know that the president isn’t always going to be a Repug. Apparently other people can’t quite remember that.
There are still a few judges left who don’t go for this new, whatever-it-takes-to-get-the-win jurisprudence.
Damn. When Judge Furman asked to borrow a Fesitvus pole, I didn’t realize he planned to use it as a ramrod to stuff a ruling up the backsides of some DOJ attorneys.
I would have lent the big one to him.
So does this give DOJ enough to insist that he should recuse himself for bias?
And quotes Albert Camus.
I was hoping for a quote from Ionesco.
No. He is reacting to events on the record in the case and ruling in accordance with the applicable law. If you continuously do stupid things and manage to royally piss off the judge in the course of the case, that’s your problem, not the judge’s.
That said, it may not stop them from trying. I’ve had to fight motions to disqualify international arbitrators in one case because they ruled against the same State respondent in other cases. It doesn’t mean they’re biased; it means that respondent does a whole lot of shady shit.
This is exactly what will restrain Roberts (or should). The ultimate issue is when an administrative decision is made (one w/o a law being enacted, and a non-elected official making the decision) can the reasoning and rational behind that decision only be challenged by looking at what is in the “official record” or can the Court go further, and when they think the agency is making it up or lying, can they order discovery as to what really is the reason for the official decision.
The traditional “liberal” view is that as long as the record supports the administrative decision, its entitled to deference.
Yet the conservatives have been upset about this type of deference for years. They feel that it expands the administrative state, removes power from the people.
Any actual conservative (a real one, like the second justice Harlin, probably Rehnquist) would be perfectly happy with what Furman has done with the trial. And It is hard to see that any conservative would want to set the rule at administrative decisions have to be just accepted based upon the paper record.
Frankly, that Allito, Thomas (who has railed against the administrative state for years), and Gorsuch would entertain any of DOJ’s bullshit shows that they are just results oriented hacks. I would hope Roberts would have some integrity, and who the hell knows about KAV. It takes five…
Unless burdening Plaintiffs and the federal courts with make-work is a feature of Defendants’ litigation strategy, as opposed to a bug, it is hard to see the point.
Sounds like Donnie is directing the DOJ - that is his standard MO.
How about a barbed one?
I would love to see/read the same level of indignation among the judges who consider the illegal appointment of Whitaker, and the various disingenuous challenges to Mueller’s authority.
VERY clear what is happening…Trump administration desperately wants this on the census questions list cuz it will depress participation by minorities and immigrants and knows it is a stretch. However, it is hoping to delay long enough that they “just don’t have time” to make the changes.
You see this happen all the time when the GOP keeps responding to court orders to redraw gerrymandered district maps by submitting more gerrymandered maps until it gets so close to election day the court gives up and says, “We have to use the existing bad maps because it would be too confusing for voters to make changes.” And the GOP wins. It is a long term game plan and so far it has worked.
But forces of reform are beginning to fight back. Four states, UT, MO, CO and MI, have now passed referendums creating independent bodies to handle the task and take it out of the hands of politicians. The public supports it by two to one.