The whole point of the Federalist Society is to appoint politically conservative judges while simultaneously insisting that judges are not political and criticizing anyone who says they are. The reason Vladeck's critiques cause so much ire is because judge shopping is a natural consequence of the Federal Society's goal. The 5th circuit can't reasonably explain why overtly political republican litigants keep choosing them to hear their cases without giving away the game. So they attack the messenger.
Dear Judge Jones, there are many, many substantive criticisms of the rulings of Texas judges and the 5th Circuit. Pretending it is all a personal attack is sophistry. Do better.
I appreciate Proffesor Vladeck holding his line and focusing on substance of the discussion. It is lamentable that Judge Jones chose to turn this into a personal attack. And make a live demonstration of what judges should not do.
Good on Vladeck for his final comments. Judge Jones apparently has a problem differentiating factual criticism from "personal attacks", and very crotchety about anyone questioning judges. Damn.
I like how almost immediately after Edith Jones' says "concerns about superannuated judges are not to be taken serious[ly]" (1:41:17), James Ho expresses puzzlement about what a QR code is. This video-particularly Jones' myopic, closeminded, imperious claims-actually confirms my opinion that we need term limits.
So these judges aren't corrupt, there's not a whiff of it in judge shopping et cetera. But she's strongly against people being able to see who funds amicus briefs. Why? Are the judgements something that would make people mad???
I love these judges who show up to an event held by a right-wing political organization to which they are connected to announce their lack of political bias.
Judge Jones: How dare Prof. Vladeck scrutinize questionable and easily gamed features of the federal court system! His work has been nothing more than outrageous personal attacks on distinguished members of the bench! Judge Kacsmaryk has five kids! *a few minutes later* Judge Newman: All of my colleagues on the Federal Circuit have conspired to silence me. Judge Jones: *effusively applauds*
Conservativism is a politics of grievance. Hearing the grievance in their rhetoric should tell you that these people are not serious jurists. They are hacks.
1:26:44 plaintiffs taking advantage of judge shopping is not the same as judge shopping being allowed. Is it really so hard to fix this? What is the resistance?
When judges take money or own stock from individuals or corporations, then make rulings involving those individuals or corporations, there is a problem with the judicial system. The ethics standards are nonexistent for some Supreme Court justices.
The judiciary has earned the distrust of intelligent ethical people who can look at conflicts of interest being ignored and see how that destructive that is. I understand that a biased court was always the fed soc goal though and this is just “moi!!!” Bs to try to deflect accountability. Congrats on destroying one of the most impressive
Shanmugam: “We should have debates about what the ethical rules for justices & lower court judges should be”. Let’s start with the ethics rules for federal judges… “Code of Conduct for United States Judges” Canon 2A An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
I found Judge Newman’s “question” heartbreaking. So I looked into her issue…. “Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman on Tuesday said she plans to press forward in her legal battle to regain her full judicial duties, even after the 97-year-old jurist’s federal lawsuit against her colleagues was dismissed earlier in the day. Newman was benched in September 2023 in a unanimous vote of her colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following a series of reports from court staff that led them to question her memory and temperament. Newman refused to submit to court-ordered medical testing, which the court’s Judicial Council said frustrated their attempts to determine if she was fit to continue serving on the bench”.
A 5 minute rant about mean tweets from a sitting federal appealate judge is not something I ever thought I would see. This is an embarrassment to the profession.
Wow at the idea that Twitter is the main forum for intellectual debates and leaving Twitter (full of sexual content and spam now) is opting out of intellectual debate
Holy shit. Shanmugam's point is literally: "criticism of how our legal practice is questionable/potentially eroding the judicial institution is what is responsible for the erosion of the legal institution". All while McConnell has the gall to say that "bullies" are the first to cry foul... I'm so exhausted by these people
Im not a lawyer but casual listener to legal stuff bc I find it interesting. I listen to advisory opinions pod and judge Ho’s interview was the only one that really annoyed me. I’m at the start of this video and he annoys me here as well. Some conservative judges appointed by Trump are really thoughtful & reasonable in interviews yet still conservative (Newsom, Willett for example) but I found Ho to simply sound like a bad politician. I’m sure he’s a smart guy but nothing about the way he speaks conveys “judge”. You lose points with me when you are using media stories about Alitos dumb flags to discuss judicial ethics reform and judicial legitimacy. This is the part of the right I cannot stand. Stop telling me everything is unfair to you before answering (or avoiding) every question. You are a powerful judge - give me real and thoughtful answers. Even if you think the alito flag story was BS, don’t assume everyone thinks that way and don’t assume everything is bad faith. For the sake of the argument steel man it and then answer it. Don’t just tell me it’s everyone else that is illegitimate. Why would you want to waste your power being political instead of having some great, thoughtful idea on the judiciary that would earn respect from all corners.
It’s more than passing strange that Judge Jones seems to apprehend that Prof. Vladeck’s argument re: judge shopping is not that the judges in question are behaving unethically, but that we are operating within a system the rules of which allow, even encourage judge shopping. His prescription for the problem, as argued in many fora, is not that any judge should change her/his behavior, but that reform of the rules is necessary to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. None of the examples of ostensible personal attacks she cited was, in fact, an attack on any person.
As TH-cam wouldn’t allow me to edit or delete the post below, wanted to note my error in the first line…Its more than passing strange that Judge Jones seems NOT to apprehend…
But isn't it fair to ask whether judges are truly insulated from politics and making principled decisions based on law when they are attending lobbyist-financed soires and hanging out with ideologues on the right, to say nothing of getting their nominations in no small part due to far-right influencers and billionaires?
At 1h and 3 minutes or so; A bit of a word salad from an annoyed judge. What she (and justice ho) are saying, in a less then eloquent manner, is that many modern nonesense concepts pushed by irresponsible legal academics are anathematic to the proper administration of justice (for a judge that takes their duties seriously). All the noise aside, they are telling us all something that we should take seriously.
![Special Solicitude: Lawsuits Against the Executive Branch and Their Futures [2024 NLC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7srI9xA2C_Y/mqdefault.jpg)
The whole point of the Federalist Society is to appoint politically conservative judges while simultaneously insisting that judges are not political and criticizing anyone who says they are. The reason Vladeck's critiques cause so much ire is because judge shopping is a natural consequence of the Federal Society's goal. The 5th circuit can't reasonably explain why overtly political republican litigants keep choosing them to hear their cases without giving away the game. So they attack the messenger.
Perfect.
Exactly, he pointed out the real game, and she couldn’t take it.
They rule in accordance to the constitution, unlike leftists who make up rights out of thin air to push their agenda.
Cope and seethe, 4 more years.
Dear Judge Jones, there are many, many substantive criticisms of the rulings of Texas judges and the 5th Circuit. Pretending it is all a personal attack is sophistry. Do better.
I appreciate Proffesor Vladeck holding his line and focusing on substance of the discussion. It is lamentable that Judge Jones chose to turn this into a personal attack. And make a live demonstration of what judges should not do.
Judge Jones’ speech here is a perfect example of missing the forest for the trees
Good on Vladeck for his final comments. Judge Jones apparently has a problem differentiating factual criticism from "personal attacks", and very crotchety about anyone questioning judges. Damn.
The 5th circuit hacks are really mad at Steve
Maybe because they hold to the law.... And he'd prefer to rewrite
Cope.
@@frjimt2286 lol
I like how almost immediately after Edith Jones' says "concerns about superannuated judges are not to be taken serious[ly]" (1:41:17), James Ho expresses puzzlement about what a QR code is. This video-particularly Jones' myopic, closeminded, imperious claims-actually confirms my opinion that we need term limits.
Unfortunately they're unconstitutional.
God Bless Steve Vladeck
So these judges aren't corrupt, there's not a whiff of it in judge shopping et cetera. But she's strongly against people being able to see who funds amicus briefs. Why? Are the judgements something that would make people mad???
If Vladeck’s points are so bad then simply argue them and you should win.
I like how the questions from the audience are endless monologues from people who love to hear themselves talk.
Is is me or Judge Jones actually bolsters the professors point? I'm not clear on what she was trying to argue.
legalpdf AI fixes this. The Continued Independence of Judiciary
Damn Steve is a hero.
"the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues" LoL.
I noticed that too. Comical, but in a tragic way.
I love these judges who show up to an event held by a right-wing political organization to which they are connected to announce their lack of political bias.
Liberal judges are far more political, ROe v Wade legal reasoning is a laughing stock.
Even worse are people like Vladeck who help legitimize these partisans by unilaterally “debating” in good faith.
Judge Jones: How dare Prof. Vladeck scrutinize questionable and easily gamed features of the federal court system! His work has been nothing more than outrageous personal attacks on distinguished members of the bench! Judge Kacsmaryk has five kids!
*a few minutes later*
Judge Newman: All of my colleagues on the Federal Circuit have conspired to silence me.
Judge Jones: *effusively applauds*
Conservativism is a politics of grievance. Hearing the grievance in their rhetoric should tell you that these people are not serious jurists. They are hacks.
As Rodney Dangerfield famously said, “you must have been something before electricity.” 😅🤣😂😭
Musk moved his legal venue for all cases to one judge that holds stock in his company.
That not a problem?
Jones seems obsessed with Vladeck.
She is, because she knows she is wrong and he is right
Kudos to Steve
I kept waiting to hear Judge Jones plead, "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" 😂😂😂
Edith Jones is really embarrassing. Playing the victim card by a federal judge is a bit of a throw up in your mouth moment.
Wow, Judge, you are awfully defensive and whiny about not just Vladek but ACLU and more. Good Lord.
Someone said that good judges have thick skin. Oh well!
This is so embarrassing for fed society. It’s cringe cringe cringe
1:26:44 plaintiffs taking advantage of judge shopping is not the same as judge shopping being allowed. Is it really so hard to fix this? What is the resistance?
When judges take money or own stock from individuals or corporations, then make rulings involving those individuals or corporations, there is a problem with the judicial system. The ethics standards are nonexistent for some Supreme Court justices.
The judiciary has earned the distrust of intelligent ethical people who can look at conflicts of interest being ignored and see how that destructive that is. I understand that a biased court was always the fed soc goal though and this is just “moi!!!” Bs to try to deflect accountability. Congrats on destroying one of the most impressive
Guess what, Judge Jones. Why YOUR judges are not defended? You are INDEFENSIBLE!
Note to party planner: Don't sit Vladeck and Jones next to each other next year.
Shanmugam: “We should have debates about what the ethical rules for justices & lower court judges should be”.
Let’s start with the ethics rules for federal judges…
“Code of Conduct for United States Judges”
Canon 2A
An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Judge Jones is a real piece of work. FFS, she's awful.
The idea that judges are cleared of impropriety by litigants not challenging their bias is ridiculous. All you do is piss the judge off lol
I found Judge Newman’s “question” heartbreaking. So I looked into her issue….
“Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman on Tuesday said she plans to press forward in her legal battle to regain her full judicial duties, even after the 97-year-old jurist’s federal lawsuit against her colleagues was dismissed earlier in the day.
Newman was benched in September 2023 in a unanimous vote of her colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following a series of reports from court staff that led them to question her memory and temperament. Newman refused to submit to court-ordered medical testing, which the court’s Judicial Council said frustrated their attempts to determine if she was fit to continue serving on the bench”.
She couldn’t take the hint that she needed to retire. Just more evidence of these ego-centric judges.
lol “I have file of all your tweets” is always ad hominem. 😂
Yup, if it comes from the right you jump with your suspenders.... If it's the left, it's OK.
These are shockingly inappropriate and partisan comments by Judge Jones. And defending senile Judge Newman tells us everything we need to know.
Settle down, Edith!! lol
A 5 minute rant about mean tweets from a sitting federal appealate judge is not something I ever thought I would see. This is an embarrassment to the profession.
Did they serve cheese with this whine?
This was incredibly spicy
Wow at the idea that Twitter is the main forum for intellectual debates and leaving Twitter (full of sexual content and spam now) is opting out of intellectual debate
Holy shit. Shanmugam's point is literally: "criticism of how our legal practice is questionable/potentially eroding the judicial institution is what is responsible for the erosion of the legal institution".
All while McConnell has the gall to say that "bullies" are the first to cry foul...
I'm so exhausted by these people
The Hon. Pauline Newman is older than the Academy Awards.
Judge Jones, please read more tweets from your notes, super exciting for a panel discussion!
Good job steve vladeck!
Im not a lawyer but casual listener to legal stuff bc I find it interesting. I listen to advisory opinions pod and judge Ho’s interview was the only one that really annoyed me. I’m at the start of this video and he annoys me here as well. Some conservative judges appointed by Trump are really thoughtful & reasonable in interviews yet still conservative (Newsom, Willett for example) but I found Ho to simply sound like a bad politician. I’m sure he’s a smart guy but nothing about the way he speaks conveys “judge”. You lose points with me when you are using media stories about Alitos dumb flags to discuss judicial ethics reform and judicial legitimacy. This is the part of the right I cannot stand. Stop telling me everything is unfair to you before answering (or avoiding) every question. You are a powerful judge - give me real and thoughtful answers. Even if you think the alito flag story was BS, don’t assume everyone thinks that way and don’t assume everything is bad faith. For the sake of the argument steel man it and then answer it. Don’t just tell me it’s everyone else that is illegitimate. Why would you want to waste your power being political instead of having some great, thoughtful idea on the judiciary that would earn respect from all corners.
Ho is on the short list for Supreme Court Justice.
It’s more than passing strange that Judge Jones seems to apprehend that Prof. Vladeck’s argument re: judge shopping is not that the judges in question are behaving unethically, but that we are operating within a system the rules of which allow, even encourage judge shopping. His prescription for the problem, as argued in many fora, is not that any judge should change her/his behavior, but that reform of the rules is necessary to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. None of the examples of ostensible personal attacks she cited was, in fact, an attack on any person.
Seem NOT to apprehend, that is (The TH-cams wouldn’t allow me to edit the post 🤦♂)
Honestly, Jones’s remarks are quite embarrassing. Easily the least polished and organized.
omigod it just got worse and worse. is that what passes as judicial temperament these days?
Just another hack judge who thinks the robes make them a higher being.
She apparently likes the smell of her own breath.
As TH-cam wouldn’t allow me to edit or delete the post below, wanted to note my error in the first line…Its more than passing strange that Judge Jones seems NOT to apprehend…
But isn't it fair to ask whether judges are truly insulated from politics and making principled decisions based on law when they are attending lobbyist-financed soires and hanging out with ideologues on the right, to say nothing of getting their nominations in no small part due to far-right influencers and billionaires?
Shanmugam is Case 1!
Sorry to hear about the Hon. Edith H. Jones's wardrobe malfunction - it really is uncomfortable to have your knickers in a twist.
Judge shopping goes back to the Garden of Eden? Are we taking about fairy tales or law? She's a tool.
Judge Jones, shame. Vladek is right.
Gosh, she REALLY doesn't like Prof Vladeck!
1:17:17 YOUR HONOR you have a STEVE VLADEK BURN BOOK bahahahahaha. Complete with printed tweets.
Epps vs Publius
Yeah Judge Jones, yeah it was ad hominem.
Why is she so obsessed with Steve lol
wE'rE a CoUnTrY oF lAwS
At 1h and 3 minutes or so; A bit of a word salad from an annoyed judge. What she (and justice ho) are saying, in a less then eloquent manner, is that many modern nonesense concepts pushed by irresponsible legal academics are anathematic to the proper administration of justice (for a judge that takes their duties seriously). All the noise aside, they are telling us all something that we should take seriously.
Edith Jones rocks. Thank you, judge! If a panel isn't a war, it's not a good panel.