Clinton appointed judges - running rampant!

If you think there happens to be an enormous number of unusual decisions coming down from US District Courts, upon the Bush/Cheney Administration...you are on the right track.

Take Judge Kessler for openers. Here is a woman who recently demanded that the Bush Administration turn over names of individuals involved in energy task force meetings. But before you think she is "honorable", consider this. She also recently ruled that the AFL-CIO and the DNC do not have to release 36,000 pages of testimony showing collusion between both the Democrats and the Big Unions. That ruling is forcing the FEC to file an appeal against her decision. Why no consistency with this judge?

Enter the latest Clinton appointee to be making news - Judge Sullivan. He too is ruling that the Administration turn over the names of energy task force members.

Now...one has to begin to wonder if this is why Clinton never had an energy policy during his 8 years of incompetence, or are we all witnesses to partisan politics being played out in the courts?

Words of advice. The next time the media tells you a US District judge ruled this way or that way...find out who appointed that judge.

If it was Clinton, we know they were handpicked by Hillary. Nothing else need be said.

This also acts to remind us of just how dangerous it is to have a socialist Democrat like Clinton, in the White House. Even though Clinton is gone, his legacy lives on in partisan justices like these two.

But before you think she is "honorable", consider this. She also recently ruled that the AFL-CIO and the DNC do not have to release 36,000 pages of testimony showing collusion between both the Democrats and the Big Unions. That ruling is forcing the FEC to file an appeal against her decision.

This is simply sick. Do you know if there is an email address available for this soul sick human being masquerading as a judge?

Yes, one of the first things I do when I see a head-scratcher decision come down from some federal judge or another is find out who appointed him or her. Rule of thumb: If the judge is a Clinton appointee, the judge is corrupt.

I also suspect that many of these scumbag appointments were selected because somebody has something on them. Dirt. This makes them easy to control.

Even though Clinton is gone, his legacy lives on in partisan justices like these two.

Clinton is not gone. His man, Terry McCullif, runs the Democrat party; has the power to give money to Democrat candidates, and helps author Tom Daschel's policy of treason against America and against President Bush behind closed doors.

Every devious thing the Democrats have said and done since the election have come from the Clintonistas, who are dying to get back in power.

One poster has asked this question before,how many times has Kessler been overturned? Does anyone here know how to find out?

Do a Lexus or Westlaw search for only circuit court opinions of the Federal Circuit Court where the judge sits. Put the Judges name in the search field, and you should receive a pretty good list of all cases decided by that judge which have been appealed. (www.Lawfind.com may also have the same information.)

When scoring the cases, only count reversals, reversals in part, modifications, and modifications in part. (A modification often results when the district court is wrong on the law and/or its legal reasoning, but somehow reaches the correct result.) Don't just look for the word "remanded" because even district court opinions that are affirmed are often remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the cuircuits opinion and order.

In addition to looking at the ratio of reversals/modifications to total appeals, you must also consider the ratio of the number of appeals taken from the appealable orders and judments issued by that particular judge to the total number of appealable orders and judgments that the judge has issued. Why? Suppose a judge issues a 1000 appealable decisions, 20 of the decisions are actually appealed, and all 20 are reversed, for a failure rate of 100% Sucks right? Not necessarily, at least not compared to a judge who issues 1000 appealable decisions, of which 100 are actually appealed and 50 are reversed, for a 50% failure rate. Despite the higher failure rate, the first judge may actually be a better judge because of the lower number of appeals taken, which suggests that his initial decisions are generally right or at least close enough to right to discourage the litigants from taking an appeal.

I obviously have far too much time on my hands this morning.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.