Octopus Overlords

I think it's time to expand just from SCOTUS to the general judiciary which is starting to act...very much not in line with what we've come to expect from judges in modern times.

To start the party off, here is a example young Trump judge in the 5th circuit (surprise!) ordering attorneys to take religious liberty training (don't dare call it re-education!) from an extremist group in a contempt order relating to an action against Southwest. The original case against Southwest is troubling in itself if you care to dig into it.

ADF's lawyers include Erin Hawley - wife of Sen. Josh Hawley (most remembered for skipping away from the rioters on Jan 6th like a cowardly swamp rat).

That's a fun fact. Another fun fact: Judge Starr is Ken Starr's nephew and had stints in Ken Paxton's regime.

I read about this in Law360 the other day and was gobsmacked. It's nuts. The court's powers to punish contempt are inherent, but they're not fucking unlimited. There's no way this stands. If I were the Southwest attorneys, I would stand my ground and tell this asshat to get fucked (in much more polite and appropriate terms).

Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:12 pm I read about this in Law360 the other day and was gobsmacked. It's nuts. The court's powers to punish contempt are inherent, but they're not fucking unlimited. There's no way this stands. If I were the Southwest attorneys, I would stand my ground and tell this asshat to get fucked (in much more polite and appropriate terms).

They immediately appealed the order.

It's ridiculous the woman won the initial judgement of $5M.

I just came across a Ruth Marcus opinion piece at WaPo about this. It does a good job explaining how out of control this is. Also, it's worth mentioning the original case -- she does a good job laying out the high level on the case -- was venue shopped to this judge and they got what they wanted. He allowed them to turn a pretty straight forward workplace harassment incident into a 'they are trampling on muh religious freedoms' witch hunt. But the bench in the most extreme places has been encouraged to do so by the extremists on the Supreme Court. This is only beginning.

Another day, another extremist ruling by another extremist Trump judge, and this decision — from Texas, no surprise — is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The judge held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for their actions in a religious-discrimination case brought by a former flight attendant and ordered them to undergo “religious liberty training.” And not just any instruction, but training conducted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group that litigates against same-sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights.

...

Carter, represented by the National Right to Work Committee, sued, claiming Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal labor laws and Title VII. The federal job-bias law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, and Carter claimed she was dismissed because of her sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion. A jury found in her favor, whoppingly so. It awarded her $5.1 million, though U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr reduced the amount to about $800,000. The case is being appealed.

Though I disagree with Ruth Marcus on one thing. She manages to take a position and then pretty much lays out why she's wrong in the same graf!

The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the ADF a “hate group,” and while I think that goes too far, this group is no neutral arbiter of constitutional values — it is an advocacy organization that takes zealous, extreme and, in my view, offensive positions. It has argued that allowing “practicing homosexuals” to serve in the military or adopt children constitutes “attacks on family values” that “will ultimately destroy our society.” In a friend-of-the-court brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the case in which the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing homosexual conduct, the ADF argued that they should be upheld because “same-sex sodomy is a distinct public health problem.”

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 6:30 pm I just came across a Ruth Marcus opinion piece at WaPo about this. It does a good job explaining how out of control this is. Also, it's worth mentioning the original case -- she does a good job laying out the high level on the case -- was venue shopped to this judge and they got what they wanted. He allowed them to turn a pretty straight forward workplace harassment incident into a 'they are trampling on muh religious freedoms' witch hunt. But the bench in the most extreme places has been encouraged to do so by the extremists on the Supreme Court. This is only beginning.

Also, don’t lose sight of the importance of the venue shopping angle you mention here. Remember, under Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, which I posted about in the SCOTUS thread, the Supreme Court has now said it’s all good for states to pass laws that require all companies doing business in the state to consent to general personal jurisdiction in the state. This pretty much throws out well settled precedent that you could only sue a company in a state where (1) the company was incorporated in that state, or (2) the activity that was at issue in the lawsuit took place in that state.

PA is currently the only state that has a law on the books that expressly requires companies to consent to general personal jurisdiction in the state, but I bet we see a raft of new states heading in that direction. Imagine if TX (or some other state in the 5th Circuit) had that law? There’s a good chance that the venue shopping we see now is going to be nothing compared with what’s to come.

We have seen a real uptick of judges on the federal bench who are simply unfit. Unfortunately, their influence may well expand as they are sought out by litigants trying to get their cases in front of their specific brand of crazy.

Thanks, SCOTUS!