More Propaganda Designed To Undermine The Constitution Here On DU

[jberryhill]

If you think you are being cute or witty by pointing out that Judge Merrick Garland is on the DC Court of Appeals so that, yes, a lot of appeals from the DCDC end up in that appellate court, and that this is somehow an opportunity for "karma" or "payback" of some kind, I'd like to suggest you are neither cute nor witty.

What you are, in fact, is a useful idiot in the continuing campaign to advance the notion that the institutions of the Constitution are thoroughly corrupted by petty self-interest, and that federal judges in particular are primarily motivated by personal vendettas.

This is a constant theme on DU. I can only guess as to why.

More recently, the judge in California presiding over the glyphosate litigation was confirmed, by many DUers as being a corrupt corporate tool on the basis of an evidentiary ruling he made months ago. When the plaintiffs actually won the trial, somehow it wasn't as interesting to the DU "corrupt federal judge" contingent.

I can only guess as to why.

I doubt that Judge Merrick issues rulings for the purpose of advancing his personal emotional satisfaction. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

If you would like others to believe that he does, then I would like to know why (a) you believe bullshit like that, and/or (b) why you want others to believe bullshit like that.

I don't think that Judge Garland is corrupt. But it is obvious that a whole bunch of DUers want you to believe he is. Ask yourself why.

[UniteFightBack]

1. And I would like to add that Garland is not a partisan skank or else Obama wouldn't of picked him.nt

[Honeycombe8]

17. So true. A corrupt individual can be corrupted by either side, after all. He's corrupt!

So Obama wouldn't select such a person. Not that there are many corrupt judges. Most take their jobs and the law seriously, IMO.

[TwilightZone]

2. I find it more ironic than anything.

I suspect many of the people you're chastising do so, as well. I doubt many of them really believe that he's going to impose some kind of karmic retribution on Trump or that he's corrupt.

Hyperbole is a thing.

[wasupaloopa]

3. You may have a point or you may not. But I think

berating people sucks

What is it that a few posters feel it is their place to put other DUers in their place.

This is twice today I felt this way.

Make your point convincingly and see who follows. Berating people does not get you anywhere other than a bunch of atta boys which I think you are seeking.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I agree with your points and that Judge Garland isn't interested in revenge. I

also think that many people, both on DU and in general, have lost confidence in the federal government and our courts.

[StarfishSaver]

5. Thank you!

[W_HAMILTON]

6. Did you ever stop and think that...

...Merrick Garland upholding his constitutional oath would be the ultimate "karma" or "payback" as you call it?

You sure seem to ascribe the worst intentions to fellow DUers.

[TwilightZone]

7. ...

"You sure seem to ascribe the worst intentions to fellow DUers."

That is an accurate statement. Hyperbolic statements about the irony of the situation are declared intentional propaganda designed to undermine the Constitution. Ok.

[lunatica]

14. The whole concept of karma is based on true justice

Upholding the Constitution is karmic law when doing so rules against unconstitutional crimes.

Finger wagging is so tiresome.

[procon]

8. Those comments undermines the upstanding

character and integrity of Judge Merrick, a man who would have upheld the honor of the SCOTUS as a fairminded and unbiased member of the court. We can't say the same thing of Trump's handpicked minions, when he openly boasts of their conservative biases and one party partisanship.

As Dems we should aspire to at least be better than Trump and the current GOP affliates, not compete with them for a place at the same trough.

[hlthe2b]

9. You might just consider educating on these threads as I have done on 3 or 4, rather than berate.

Many of them are responding to a silly tweet (and self-deleted after I pointed out the facts including that there will be a randomly selected panel of three and Garland is not about to put his thumb on the scale. The eleven total justices are a mixture of Republican-appointed and Dem-appointed justices).

[maxsolomon]

10. you can try.

I often ask posters to justify comments; I rarely get much of an answer.

we have a discussion crisis; despite the unprecedented amount of communication taking place on the internet, there's little actual discussion. zingers, irony, name-calling, uninformed knee-jerk binary hyperbole, DU has it all.

[TwilightZone]

12. ...

"zingers, irony, name-calling, uninformed knee-jerk binary hyperbole, DU has it all."

As does the OP. Accusing DUers of intentional propaganda intended to undermine the Constitution is about as hyperbolic as it gets around here. It's laughably ironic, as well.

[maxsolomon]

19. at least it's thought-out

I get uptight about hit-and-run comments that are flat out wrong.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

51. +1...

eom.

[Phoenix61]

11. Lighten up

I don’t think anyone on DU thinks Garland will be anything other than a true professional. However, Twitler and his minions have no concept of that behavior and will see this as a very bad thing and anything that makes them unhappy, makes me smile.

[StarfishSaver]

13. I don't agree

If Judge Garland got this case and ruled in a way that people here didn't like, he'd be attacked viciously as a sellout, and worse.

[TwilightZone]

15. That may be true...

But it doesn't make the OP's assertion that those who are posting hyperbolic statements about karmic retribution are intentionally posting propaganda intended to undermine the Constitution any more accurate or less ridiculous.

It's kind of ironic, actually. The OP's response to hyperbole...is turning the hyperbolic dial to 11.

[SunSeeker]

25. Yep. nt

[hlthe2b]

26. It goes to a randomly selected three justice panel. There are 11 justices, a mix of R-appointed and

D-appointed justices. The odds are against Garland being part of the panel, so unless it was referred to the full court, he would be unlikely to participate. Not to mention if there actually was a conflict of interest, he'd undoubtedly recuse.

[pdsimdars]

34. I know. Some people are really triggered. Also, factually, the Judges are not all pristine.

Some on the Supreme Court have said and written outrageous things, that are not based in law but partisan.

[Hekate]

16. I've been sickened by the too-many references to Mueller as a Repuke, a Rethuglican, and...

...a RepuKKKlikan. It's as though there is not and cannot be an honorable public servant who is not in one's own tribe from birth, and that they are fair game to be smeared and slimed regardless of their decades of public service and public record.

It is exactly the same mindset that allowed Trump to categorically declare that a judge of Mexican American descent would not and could not give Trump's case a fair hearing. We rightly denounced Trump for that -- now some of us need to look in a mirror.

Thank you, jberryhill. You said it all much better than I.

[tymorial]

53. Agreed and I would just like to add two names:John Paul Steven's and David Souter

If anyone doesn't understand the point I suggest Google.

[Thekaspervote]

18. Thank you jberryhill for you post. Especially since you are more well versed than most to address

These complex legal issues

[SunSeeker]

23. There is nothing complex about this issue.

And frankly, it appears the OP missed the point about why DUers were saying it's karma.

It is not that they think Merrick Garland will exact retribution or is a partisan hack. On the contrary. We expect him to follow the law. Which is very bad news for Donald Trump. 

And what sweeter way to deliver justice to that criminal than via the hand of a man he wronged? THAT is the karma. 

Being a lawyer does not make a person special here. There are a LOT of lawyers on DU. Good lawyers don't invoke their degree to butress their arguments. It seems to me most lawyers posting on DU don't tell people they are lawyers. This is an anonymous board, after all. Posts should speak for themselves, and no poster's opinion is more important than another's. This is Democratic Underground, in every sense.

[oldsoftie]

47. Unless someone is speaking about the law & they're NOT a lawyer.

Then its not really an opinion if they are saying something is illegal or such.
I've seen many posts over the years where one of the DU lawyers will point out how court actually works, or how a law is carried out.

[TNNurse]

20. I never gave bias or corruption a thought.

My only thought was that a competent, qualified and respected judge would be involved.

[SunSeeker]

21. I think you missed the point on why most DUers are saying it's karma.

It is not that they think Merrick Garland will exact retribution or is a partisan hack. On the contrary. We expect him to follow the law. Which is very bad news for Donald Trump.

And what sweeter way to deliver justice to that criminal than via the hand of a man he wronged? THAT is the karma.

But apparently you can't resist an opportunity to bash DUers.

[Ilsa]

55. This.

The OPer doesn't get it. It's all about the shock of the trump team in having to deal with someone McConnell wronged.

[NotHardly]

22. "What you are, in fact, is a useful idiot..." see, if I said that I'd get a nasty note from monitors

on this site for dissing others but apparently it is OK for some people.

[DallasNE]

24. The Other Thing

As Chief Judge I doubt that he will be heavily involved. Besides, aren't 3 Judge panels used on appeal and Garland would not be one of the three.

[SunSeeker]

35. Correct.

Garland might not be on the 3-judge panel assigned to the case. He is certainly not assigned to every case: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/fullcalendar?OpenView&count=1000

[Kurt V.]

27. while this may be true for some it's certainly not true for all. nt

[unblock]

28. Garland can't really have any particular beef with Donald fraud anyway

His beef would be with the senaturtle.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Perhaps a bit overstated, but I feel your frustration at the level of...

discussion often seen around here.

[jberryhill]

31. I'll cop to "overstated"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Thank you for this!

First things I thought when I saw that the accounting records subpoena case was being appealed to the DC Circuit, of which Garland is the chief judge, were that this doesn't mean a damn thing, karmically or otherwise, because (a) the appeal will probably be heard by a three-judge panel, of which Garland will not necessarily be a member - there are seventeen judges on the DC Circuit - and, (b) more importantly, because even if Garland is one of the judges hearing the appeal, he won't make a corrupt decision based on a desire to get even with the GOP by ruling against Trump. It's a grave insult to Judge Garland to assume or even hope that he would do so.

Are corrupt judicial decisions OK when they are in "our" favor? I hope that's not what people are looking for.

I think the trial judge's decision will be upheld anyhow.

[emmaverybo]

32. Thank you. See a lot if this thinking here--an inability to imagine that actually some in the

Judicial and law enforcement branches rise above politics and personal grudges to follow the law, to do their duty.

[malaise]

33. Agree

Rec

[Victor_c3]

36. Good point

For the most part, I believe judges to be non-partisan. They might lean in certain directions like the rest of us, but they generally act in what they consider to be the best interest of the nation.

I’m sure there are exceptions, but that is just that - exceptions.

[moniss]

37. Nonsense

Unfortunately I can speak from experience about a "revered" Federal judge not just being in error on the law but knowingly putting his thumb on the scale. I was involved in a case against the EPA refusing to disclose information that was contained in a report about a toxic waste site. The question was whether there were chemical compounds listed in a withheld portion of the report that had not already been disclosed to the public. The EPA by way of the US Attorney submitted the publicly available list along with the withheld report in question. The judge stated he would review the material over the weekend and if any chemical compounds were in the report that were not on the list he would provide them to me. Monday came and he announced from the bench that he had personally compared the materials and there were no new compounds to disclose. So he dismissed my FOIA complaint with a dismissive comment that I should refrain from alarming people when there was nothing wrong and that I should trust public servants. Some while later while performing a file review at EPA regional offices I came across the report in its' full form in a file completely unrelated to the original case. Lo and behold. Guess what? Lots of chemical compounds that we didn't know about. How about that. Gee I guess he must have had pages stuck together and just missed them right? Sure thing. While I do agree that we should not tar with broad accusations against an entire profession, I also do not believe that judges are somehow raised above the level of engaging in unethical conduct because they wear a cheap robe or attain a certain level from which to act.

[rzemanfl]

40. I have to wash socks. BBL. n/t

[PatrickforO]

38. However Garland, or any other Federal judge, rules or does not rule,

they don't make the karma. Acts someone did or did not do all have karmic consequences, either in this life or the next. Sometimes it may take several lifetimes for someone's karma to ripen from a really terrible act or an omission that materially hurt someone.

Karma is a mystery of Divine Providence.

As to Garland, I'm expecting he will rule justly in a way that he believes upholds the Constitution.

As to you, by avering that everyone who puts forth the idea that Garland is an agent of karma by making a just ruling, you seem to think the people on here are little more than dupes and useful idiots.

But consider this - all of us, every single one of us, has been subjected to nonstop corporate propaganda beginning in the 1970s after the Powell Manifesto was adopted by the US Chamber of Commerce, and definitely after 1987, when the snake Reagan pocket-vetoed the Fairness Doctrine. Trump is only the latest - the fact he's 'in your face' is really good, actually, because the neocons under W and Cheney were quite a bit subtler. Trump doesn't even try to seem fair or just or unbiased, and his constant attacks on our institutions - those things holding up our country in spite of this corporate coup - act like a corrosive acid.

You didn't ask me, but I'm going to tell you anyway - those we elect in 2020 are going to have a very tall order because they will have to basically rebuild many of our institutions while at the same time working conscientiously to restore our faith in those very same institutions. We need them.

So don't blame the victims. Instead of berating, why not just point it out?

[rzemanfl]

39. K&R. Thank you for posting this. n/t

[ProudLib72]

41. I remember the OP you have in mind

I didn't jump on that bandwagon. Nope, just didn't feel right.

I did, however, posit that, should Garland find against the Rump, the orange shitstain would most likely use the McTurtle mishegoss as an excuse to disobey the decision.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. Garland probably won't be making the decision. The usual procedure

would be to have the order reviewed by a 3-judge panel, likely consisting three of the other 16 judges.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Thank you. Cogent post. Glad to see it in your journal. . . . nt

[SkyDaddy7]

43. Thank-you so much!!

[samnsara]

45. i just like to think that Karma is indeed a Bitch....

[pnwmom]

46. I also don't understand how these people don't understand that if Garland

upholds the District judge -- which he is likely to do, just based on law, logic and the facts -- they are delegitimizing his decision. They are feeding the Trump narrative that there is no truth and everything's about partisanship.

[moondust]

48. Some people

may simply be getting sucked into the Dumpublican strategy of reducing EVERYTHING to red/blue politics as usual (so that their past and present behavior is not considered criminal and law enforcement can be dismissed as mere political opposition).

[dlk]

49. I Think This Poster's Umbrage is Misplaced

I haven’t seen anyone suggest that Judge Garland is anything less than a supremely conscientious, ethical and prudent jurist. However, given his extremely shabby, hostile and unethical treatment by Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, it is reasonable for DUers to see the possibility of his hearing of Trump’s frivolous lawsuit karmic and the height of irony. Too much is at stake and we need to stand together.

[MGKrebs]

50. Or maybe sometimes people just get a little overzealous

in their wishful thinking about outcomes.

[elleng]

52. Thanks

[RichardRay]

54. Well, it *is* amusing...

...but I wouldn’t take it any further. 😁

[marble falls]

56. While I applaud your reminding people that we don't use situational ethics, that we aren't like ...

the GOP in winning at all costs, believing that all judges are completely neutral is extremely naive. If judges are all the same in their duties then why does it any difference at all what a judge's politics are? Why would we be able to discriminate one SCOTUS from another as "conservative" and another as "liberal"?

[JonLP24]

58. I agree

[JudyM]

57. I felt it more as a sense of tentative relief that justice might be served, as opposed to the real

possibility of a tRump supporter sitting on the bench. Why? Because his supporters seem to have disdain for justice and the rule of law, and I frankly do not trust judiciary members who rule politically. You don’t think that happens? Think Bush v Gore, as a striking example.