If Trump’s appointment of judges is conspiracy impacted, they have turned out to be uncooperative conspirators
President Trump has sustained significant criticism over the past four years over his appointment of federal judges. The common complaint is that his decisions are corrupted by “the wishes of large conservative donors” who are following “and enacting the Republican agenda.” In short, Trump’s liberal distractors have suggested that the President has engaged in a conspiracy with his conservative pals.
But as John O. McGinnis notes in his piece in the City Journal, the judges whom Trump has appointed have turned out to be singularly uncooperative conspirators. “Not one Trump-appointed judge has supported the president’s claims of a stolen election. The Supreme Court this week unanimously refused to take up the case challenging his loss in Pennsylvania. Not one justice—including Trump appointees Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh, and Amy Coney Barrett—noted any dissent from that ruling.”
Trump appointee Stephanos Bibas. “rejected all of Trump’s complaints about the election in Pennsylvania, refused to allow the campaign to amend its complaint, and declined to prevent Pennsylvania’s secretary of state from certifying Biden as the victor there. Bibas was emphatic in his dismissal of all the arguments: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” McGinnis notes.
At least one judge rejected a Republican lawsuit on the basis that the moving party lacked standing to bring the suit; the election clause being the challenge, the party (Trump) bringing the suit “was not the object of its protection, because he was not a state legislator. Thus, his claims were based on a general interest in having the state follow the law, which is not enough to get into federal court.”
“This opinion faithfully applied the Supreme Court precedent on standing, though those restrictions were not in the interest of the Trump campaign, and results-oriented judges frequently manipulate the issue of standing to reach results that they prefer,” McGinnis notes.
Judge William Pryor, another judge appointed by Bush, also gave the back of his hand to a lawsuit seeking to reverse the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia. Pryor made clear that the court had no jurisdiction to hear garden-variety claims of election misconduct. Pryor’s opinion shows his adherence to the limited jurisdiction of federal courts and federalism. Formalist judges, like Pryor and those whom Trump appointed, are dedicated to upholding sound constitutional principles, not reaching particular results.” McGinnis continues.
We believe that under the principles of standing, separation of powers, and federalism, the courts who have made rulings are wrong.
According to LUJAN v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE | FindLaw, there are three requirements for standing:
- Injury, in fact, means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
- A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct means that the injury can be traced to the defendant’s challenged action and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party, not before the court.
- A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury resulting from a favorable ruling is not too speculative.
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.
The lawsuits challenging the election irregularities, including arguments of fraud and last-minute changes in election laws. and so forth, clearly past the standing test. We agree with McGinnis that games are being played on this issue.
Supreme Court justice Hugo Black believed federalism meant paying proper respect to the states since the union is made up of separate governments and that government at a national level will fare better if states are left to their own ways. However, we believe that no court should endorse state laws that enable election fraud.
The Constitution lists the legislative powers of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment protects the states’ residual powers. “The powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
None of these principals endorse state election laws that are corrupt. When a court determines that “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” he ignores the magnanimity of the case and difficulty of gathering evidence; that is why we encouraged hearings or trials under oath where the parties could use the court’s subpoena power to gather additional evidence.
Around 73 million Americans are questioning the credibility of the 2020 election. “Proper respect” is not violated when states violate fundamental election processes that enable fraud.
Now is not the time to dodge these issues; Trump’s team earnestly argues that the election was either rigged or grossly mismanaged, resulting in voter fraud. Blocking hearings is not helpful.