As I read through the almost-daily reports of the cases where the President's actions are being reviewed by various Federal courts, I always look for indications in the stories of which President appointed the judge or justice who is rendering the decision. In the case of the Left Coast 9th Circuit, and recently the DC Circuit, the President always loses. There is no longer any suspense. We know how it's going to end, just as we know why the cases were brought in those two circuits in the first place.
The news Media don't make it easy, often omitting this telling bit of information (who appointed the judge), or hiding it at the end of a long column.
You know what I'm driving at, don't you. In every case that I've seen, the judges who are ruling against Trump are invariably Democrat-appointed, and the ones who are ruling in Trump's favor are Republican-nominated.
This is particularly telling in the cases involving Trump's tax returns, because the issues in those cases are not really political. It's about the privacy of a citizen who just happens to be the President of the United States. And while "Liberals" traditionally favor privacy over the interests of "law & order," Democrat-appointed judges seem to have no problem invading Trump's privacy, sanctioning an outrageous demand for almost a decade of detailed tax information from a number of taxpayer-entities, in order to check and see if a couple of very specific payments were made at KNOWN times to specific women of easy virtue. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that this is bullshit.
President Trump has changed a lot of things because he refuses to be constrained by how things have been done in the past, and in the process of executing the office of the President he has exposed a lot of bad stuff. But it may be worst of all that he has exposed what political hacks our Federal judges are. And not just in the Supreme Court. It appears that this bias goes all the way down to the Districts.
From this point forward, in the reporting of any politically-significant case in a Federal court, the report MUST include this information if the publication wants to be taken seriously. To omit it would be the equivalent of recording a score on the sports pages without mentioning which team got the points.
The news Media don't make it easy, often omitting this telling bit of information (who appointed the judge), or hiding it at the end of a long column.
You know what I'm driving at, don't you. In every case that I've seen, the judges who are ruling against Trump are invariably Democrat-appointed, and the ones who are ruling in Trump's favor are Republican-nominated.
This is particularly telling in the cases involving Trump's tax returns, because the issues in those cases are not really political. It's about the privacy of a citizen who just happens to be the President of the United States. And while "Liberals" traditionally favor privacy over the interests of "law & order," Democrat-appointed judges seem to have no problem invading Trump's privacy, sanctioning an outrageous demand for almost a decade of detailed tax information from a number of taxpayer-entities, in order to check and see if a couple of very specific payments were made at KNOWN times to specific women of easy virtue. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that this is bullshit.
President Trump has changed a lot of things because he refuses to be constrained by how things have been done in the past, and in the process of executing the office of the President he has exposed a lot of bad stuff. But it may be worst of all that he has exposed what political hacks our Federal judges are. And not just in the Supreme Court. It appears that this bias goes all the way down to the Districts.
From this point forward, in the reporting of any politically-significant case in a Federal court, the report MUST include this information if the publication wants to be taken seriously. To omit it would be the equivalent of recording a score on the sports pages without mentioning which team got the points.
