Federal Judges Need To Stop Pretending They're God
“You shall not make for yourself an idol”- Exodus 20:4
Isn’t it idolatry when people claim that they are above temptation? When they insist they possess such divine virtue, aren’t they charlatans? — especially when they simultaneously insist that others must not question their supposed purity? Unfortunately, this describes many federal judges.
Last week, Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a surprising public statement. Roberts was responding to some fair and honest criticism leveled by President Donald Trump after a federal judge on the 9th Circuit, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued a dubious ruling on border security.
Here are some excerpts from Trump’s statement to the media:
“You go to 9th Circuit and it’s a disgrace, and I’m going to put in a major complaint. Because you cannot win, if you’re us, a case in the 9th Circuit,” Trump said. “Every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten, and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court — like the travel ban — and we won.”
“This was an Obama judge, and I’ll tell you what, it’s not going to happen like this anymore … Everybody that wants to sue the United States … they file their case in the 9th Circuit, and it means an automatic loss. No matter what you do, no matter how good your case is. And the 9th Circuit is really something we have to take a look at, because it’s not fair.”
“People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file their case,” Trump continued. “It’s a disgrace, in my opinion, what happens with the 9th Circuit. We will win that case in the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Here is the response from Roberts:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them … The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
The president then tweeted:
Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why……
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018
…..are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security – these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018
“79% of these decisions have been overturned in the 9th Circuit.” @FoxNews A terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace. It has become a dumping ground for certain lawyers looking for easy wins and delays. Much talk over dividing up the 9th Circuit into 2 or 3 Circuits. Too big!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018
Now, what Roberts implied about judges being above partisanship is not just wrong, nor is it simply refuted by an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence gathered by both partisan and non-partisan organizations alike — which it is (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) — but it’s also an utterly ridiculous claim on its face.
Given what the American electorate knows all too well about the appointment of federal judges and the partisan divide in the Supreme Court itself, one may now wonder if Roberts broke not only the First Commandment but also damaged his own credibility and knowingly bore false witness against the president all in a futile effort to deny the undeniable.
Indeed, given his statement, there are no doubt those who would like to ask Roberts to explain the recent behavior of the so-called “Clintonite Love Judge,” Kimba Wood, in light of the law which requires federal judges to proactively disqualify themselves without being prompted from “any proceeding in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
You see, notwithstanding the statute, Judge Wood continued to preside over the federal court hearings involving Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, even though she had appeared in her official judicial capacity to preside over the 2013 wedding ceremony of her friend George Soros — the billionaire Democratic mega-donor who gave some $15 billion to Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign against Cohen’s then-boss.
And that’s not all. History also shows that while the Clintons were in the White House in the 1990s, Wood was second on their list of candidates to be U.S. attorney general until she became embroiled in an immigration-related scandal dubbed “nanny-gate.”
Nonetheless, Wood continued to preside over the Cohen hearings as her potential protégé, Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels,” gleefully looked on from the courtroom gallery. Indeed, another judge may have granted Cohen’s request to provide the potentially-privileged identities of his clients in private rather than require him to read their names aloud during an open hearing as Judge Wood did.
This all begs the question, under the circumstances, might Wood’s “impartiality” have “reasonably” been “questioned,” as required by the law which would call for her disqualification?
“Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you.”
– Deuteronomy 16:18-20
Well, the over 4,850 people who have thus far signed this online petition asking the speaker of the House to bring articles of impeachment against Judge Wood certainly seemed to question her impartiality.
Further, speaking of impeachment, at one of Cohen’s first hearings, Wood said from the bench that she had “faith” that the “integrity” of the feds who had decided to raid Cohen’s law office was “unimpeachable,” thereby casting well-founded doubt on her own ability to impartially hear any claims of prosecutorial misconduct.
So, is it really any surprise that Cohen took a plea deal with little if any hope whatsoever for a fair trial under a judge who is intimately connected to Trump’s chief rivals and who had preemptively declared the integrity of the other side to be unquestionable.
There are likely those in the DOJ (or those who may have left the Justice Department for CNN but who nonetheless still seem to speak directly on its behalf) who would retort that Cohen could have filed a motion to disqualify Wood on these grounds but he failed to do so. However, this is a disingenuous argument because it’s well-known in legal circles and well-documented by the liberal media that judges often retaliate against those who move to recuse them. Further, even if a particular judge is forced off a case, their colleagues may then retaliate on their behalf. As an attorney himself, Cohen was likely acutely aware of these simple facts.
“Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.”
– Deuteronomy 1:17
However, despite all this and the Supreme Court’s supervisory role overseeing the federal courts and judges below, it seems that Chief Justice Roberts would rather falsely criticize President Trump, who if anything has been victimized by lower judges like Wood, than do his job of reigning in those judges.
Saliently though, what kind of public accountability do federal judges face when even the president can’t speak the truth plainly about the federal judiciary when he is the leader of a co-equal branch of government as well as the person responsible for nominating and promoting federal judges? And what kind of chance does the average American have when they come up against a corrupt judge who’s been appointed for life?
Indeed, Trump and his current and former associates are far from alone in having experienced such obvious and shocking corruption in federal court.
In fact, yours truly has now been wrongfully imprisoned for nearly 3 years by corrupt federal judges after I helped save the life of a young girl named Justina Pelletier who was abducted, tortured, crippled, and nearly killed by those with close personal and financial ties to those same judges. Millions probably remember Justina and her story, even if not by name.
Below is a video clip of Justina and her family on Fox News with Governor Huckabee shortly after her eventual return home.
The details of how I fit in were told by frequent Fox News guest Michelle Malkin on her website here.
As to the specifics on the relevant conflicts of interest and how the last person to have a similar case in front of my same judge, the Honorable Nathaniel M. Gorton, ended up committing suicide, please see here.
As we’ve seen with the Clintonite Love Judge and others, the end result of people in power arrogantly and belligerently denying their human nature is disastrous. This is just one reason why the First Commandment is such an important rule which should be upheld by judges and non-judges alike.
After all, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”
-Proverbs 16:18
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
