Action 116 NO biased JUDGES!
Background: Believe it or not, less than half of adults in this country can name the three branches of government. (1). Also, while most people think the three branches should be co-equal, a survey this month found that about 10% think the executive should be more powerful than Congress or the Judiciary (2). Trump certainly is a prime influencer of that 10%, and he’s making serious efforts to dominate the other two branches. (3) Nothing could provide a more powerful underpinning to his efforts than the Supreme Court’s ruling that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. (4)
Courts do exist in authoritarian regimes (5): they are useful instruments of control. “What is happening here is hardly unique... internationally autocracies have weaponized judiciaries to prop up their anti-democratic agendas, transforming courts from neutral arbiters of the law into yes men for autocratic policies” (6). Trump has already launched attacks on judges who have ruled against him, threatening impeachment. He’s defied court orders. Now, with the help of MAGA Republicans in Congress, he wants to stack the judiciary with young, ideological extremists who will back his authoritarian plans for decades to come. “The Far Right is pursuing an audacious effort to capture America’s courts. Fueled by $250 million in secret “dark money” contributions, they seek to enact a radical social and economic agenda they could never achieve legislatively.” (7) “We must operate from the expectation that Trump’s picks for judges parallel his picks for other positions in their loyalty to him and his hoarding of power.... Every effort must be made to prevent [loyalist] judges from ever sitting on the bench, lest they erode the last bulwark we have against Trump’s power grabs.” (8)
Republicans and Democrats alike have agreed that more judges are needed, and “in the before times” that was a bipartisan process. No longer. The JUDGES ACT of 2025 would create 22 NEW federal judgeships specifically for Trump to appoint. It’s important to note that these are additional judges, not replacements, so in effect they’re planning on packing the courts. The bill, HR 1702, was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and currently has 13 cosponsors (including 4 Democrats!) (9) The Committee on the Judiciary reported it out with a vote of 16-11 on March 5 and that’s apparently where it still sits (10), awaiting votes in House and Senate.
Action: Ask our Congressional delegation to vote NO on the Judges Act, HR 1702. The Trump Administration has made it abundantly clear that it cannot be trusted to put forward competent, impartial candidates for these positions. Instead, we will be stuck with 22 brand new Aileen Cannons! If you are pressed for time, Extra Credit reference (11) has a form you can fill out. But as always, try to use your own words and communicate through the congress critters’ online portals.
Contact:
Senator Susan Collins: Email: www.collins.senate.gov/contact/email-senator-collins/form
Phone: (202) 224-2523 (DC office), (207) 945-0417 (Bangor office)
Senator Angus King: Email www.king.senate.gov/contact
Phone: (202) 224-5344 (DC office), (207) 945-8000 (Bangor office)
Representative Jared Golden: Email: golden.house.gov/contact
Phone: (202) 224-3121 (DC office), (207) 249-7400 (Bangor office)
Representative Chellie Pingree: Email: https://pingree.house.gov/contact/
Phone: (202) 225-6116 (DC office), (207) 774-5019 (Portland office)
Urgency: Hard to say when Congress might take up this bill. Advise in advance!
Extra Credit:
(3) Project 2025 deals with the executive branch, so we don’t find an explicit court packing strategy there, except for this veiled reference in the chapter on the Department of Justice (p. 560 in the full text version, emphasis added): “The next conservative Administration should embrace the Constitution and understand the obligation of the executive branch to use its independent resources and authorities to restrain the excesses of both the legislative and judicial branches. ... pushback among the branches is a positive feature and not a defect of our system...” In other words, DOJ, it’s fine to go after the other two branches to “restrain their excesses,” whatever you think that means. I think we can guess – it’s anything the despot doesn’t like.
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States
(5) https://home.uchicago.edu/~tginsburg/pdf/articles/ThePoliticsOfCourtsInAuthoritarianRegimes.pdf
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9O1o3UpjgU&t=21s/
(7) https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/dark-money/ reporting on the secret donor network behind the Far Right’s attempt to turn the judiciary into a tool for partisan and corporate interests. Talks about Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.
(9) Scott Peters (CA) Juan Vargas (CA) J. Luis Correa (CA) and Wesley Bell (MO). They should be primaried or at least forced to explain themselves to their voters.
(10) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1702/text
(11) https://actionnetwork.org/letters/tell-congress-oppose-the-judges-act