3 ms·
Quick primer on how the courts have been successfully weaponized here. The Federal court system is divided into circuits [1]. Circuits are further divided into
by jmyeet 2y ago
Quick primer on how the courts have been successfully weaponized here.
The Federal court system is divided into circuits [1]. Circuits are further divided into districts (eg Eastern District of Texas). In sparsely populated, large areas there districts may be further subdivided into divisions. The idea is you shouldn't need to drive 6 hours to get to a Federal judge.
Each district has an Appeals Court that sits above the District Court so that's what "Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals" means. Above all the circuit appeals courts sits the Supreme Court. Additionally, each circuit has a single Supreme Court judge who is available to hear emergency motions from appeals court rulings. That judge can rule on the motion or refer the matter to the entire Supreme Court.
Judges reflect the politics of the state they're in because of the blue slip system [2]. Presidents nominate judges to Federal courts. A Senator from that judge's state by tradition (ie there's no law for this) essentially can veto that nomination.
Federal district court judges have the power to make rulings and issue injunctions that affect the entire country.
So in Texas we have a perfect storm for judge shopping and a forum to push conservative views through lawsuits. Texas is a large state so the districts are divided into divisions. A division might only have 1-2 Federal district court judges. So if you nominally establish a business in Amarillo, TX you know with a high degree of certainty what judge you'll get when you file a lawsuit. With certain questionable tactics, you can know pretty much 100% what judge you "randomly" get assigned.
This is called "judge shopping".
It's why all the patent cases are litigated in the Eastern District of Texas. It's why any anti-abortion lawsuit always ends up in front of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk [3] in the Northern District of Texas (eg [4]).
So the Fifth Circuit is conservative because Texas, Alabama and Louisiana are conservative. Conservative judges are usually viewed as more friendly to lawsuits attacking any sort of government regulation. Even if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't rule in favor of the cable companies, the matter will go straight to the Supreme Court. This current Supreme Court has shown themselves highly likely to take up the case and intervene, probably in favor of cable companies.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate)
[3]: https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk
[4]: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug-mifepristone-judge-texas-amarillo https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1159220452/abortion-pill-drug...
- roshin 2y agoThat's because the US wasn't designed to have unelected federal bureaucrats create laws for the entire country. Every state should make their own laws, and then those state's courts could determine if the law is legal or not.
- jmyeet 2y agoThat's ahistorical. The Federal court system was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 [1], the same year the constitution came into force (which established the Supreme Court). Whenever people bring up "states rights" with objectively false claims, one needs to consider the history of such a claim. It was most prominent in the Secession Crisis and the obvious follow up question is "states rights to do what?" because the answer is "to own people as property". Google is free. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_Unite...
- sitkack 2y agoThey can't because those same corporate and conservative players will use the Commerce Clause to prevent any meaningful legislation at the state level. You get to choose the color of the billy club of submission but not how it is held or its target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/752 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art... Your ideology is leaking.
- JoshTriplett 2y agoExactly. The standard playbook is to attack attempts to do this at the federal level by arguing it's a state decision, and attack attempts to do this at the state level using the excessively broadened Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn was a horrible overreaching mistake, as was every other expansion of the Commerce Clause. (There are different playbooks for passing laws that curtail personal rights, by arguing to do it at both the state and federal level, or removing federal prohibitions on something and then enacting it on a state by state basis while trying to pass the reverse at the federal level.)