Deconstructing the Narrative of the Resistance Judiciary – RedState

If you are like me, whenever you hear or see a news now, it starts with: “X Number of experts such as” or “former intelligence managers” or “retired military officers” or a “letter of sign saying Y” you have learned to put it back. We are supposed to be impressed by the appeal to authority and / or the number of those who register on a proposal.

We are not. Not even when they are judges.

Now it hurts me a little to say that because I firmly believe in judicial power and has an essential role in our governance. And, as a recovery lawyer myself, the one who practiced law before several courts before several judges in nearly three decades, respect for the bench is anchored. I know well the fact that decisions often do not go as we want, but began to start from the premise that judges know what they are doing and do things more often than otherwise. They obtain this deference of “Solomon wisdom”, which, I realize, is often unjustified. I simply recognize my default parameter on this subject.

So, when I saw the story several days ago on “42 retired judges” having signed an “open letter” criticizing the indictment of the Trump administration of the former director of the FBI James Comey, I semi-dominated. I knew I did not put a lot of stock – that it was probably a cohort of kinds of Neverrump trotted to seem impressive; that I would probably not agree with their catch; And that, in the entire scheme of things, it was not worth the ink or the digital space used to create it. I wrote it.

But then, while listening to my favorite podcast (“America this week”) on Saturday, the animators of Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn have a little more expanded, and I was amazed by the absolute absurdity of the parts of the letter they shared.

So, I felt forced to look for him and see if he was as tilted as it sounded. Indeed, it was and it is, as I did with the story of the left which followed the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I now feel obliged to deconstruct this ridiculous letter written / signed by what I am referring now as the judiciary of resistance ™ money.

See: Deconstructing the story of the left – Part 1: Made against opinion

Deconstruct the story of the left – Part 2: the debate

First of all, a word on the signatories: at the top of the list is judge Michael Luttig, a former circuit judge for the American Court of Appeal for the fourth circuit. His name may seem familiar, because he is a frequent talking head on the inherited media that sounds the alarm of the bad orange and other. Okay, it follows.

In fact, I have not recognized any of the other names in the list – none was Missouri; Surprisingly, little came from what we even considered to be red states. Many California, Massachusetts and New York, however. Keeping in mind that they are all retired judges and would therefore not be recent vintage, the most charitable reading of political affiliation concerning the judges and / or the leaders who have appointed them is that this list consists of a meager democrat of 75%, 25% republican. And by charitable, I mean by assuming that someone named by Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush is aligned with Donald Trump and the republican party of 2025. In other words, realistically, there may be two or three judges on this list which still vote Republican.

This just underestimates the “authority” that this missive has. We do not know, of course, how many former judges have been contacted who have chosen not to jump on this train – and if they did it due to an ideological motivation, or of an opportunity for those who did.

Does that seem to be hard? Well, let’s move on to the body of the letter and dissect it (the main chips are the language of the letter; the sub-points are my comment):

• “The rights and freedoms of the Americans are protected by the Constitution and the rule of law.”
  • Check. We agree.
• “These rights and freedoms of each American are in serious danger today, while President Donald Trump continues to mistreat the power of his office by directing the Ministry of Justice in the United States and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to target his criticisms and political enemies perceived for the investigation and criminal proceedings.”
  • There is a lot to unpack there. It is largely their opinion / characterization, but even if I agree, it seems worrying, I wonder why they never spoke during the Biden or Obama administrations. Yes, this is what the appointment, but even if we take their characterizations at their nominal value, they voluntarily turn a blind eye to everything that happened before January 20, 2025. This also assumes that there is no legitimate investigation or criminal proceedings to have.
• “All of his threats and all pretextual surveys and prosecution further corrupts democracy and the rule of law in America.”
  • Again, this assumes that there is nothing to investigate or continue. And why have we always been lacking “America / our democracy” without recognition that we are a Republic?
• “In the United States of America, the Constitution prohibits President Trump from ordering the unfounded prosecution of his perceived political adversaries and his criticisms.”
  • Hold the phone here, your Honerz – I am absolutely certain that the Constitution never mentions the “President Trump” only once. Does this limit the limits of the scope of the president’s authority? Yes. All presidents.
• “Although the Constitution does not prevent President Trump from dismissing federal prosecutors, no prosecutor should never be dismissed for refusing to bring baseless accusations against adversaries and political criticism of President Trump.”
  • Once again, once again, they jump just beyond the recognition of what is in the field of the president and to the damage of the case against Comey and to the pronunciation of charges against him “without foundation” and because of his Trump review (like Trump’s criticism is a rarity).
• “However, this is exactly what Donald Trump has done. He dismissed his own prosecutors because they refused to continue criminal charges against the Americans for whom he houses personal animus, then he immediately installed handpicked replacements who pursued the investigations or accusation acts that their predecessors refused.”
  • I think it’s a good point to discuss. This is their opinion and they are entitled to it, however, of course, one might wonder what they base it on.
• “As a result of President Trump’s actions in the past nine months he has been in the presidency, no American is immune to criminal proceedings, that they have violated the law and regardless of their political or ideological opinions.”
  • It’s hyperbolic, to say the least. Do they dispute that the Constitution no longer grants American protections? And did they not just say that Trump was going after his political opponents? But now is it just anyone and everyone, embarrassing?
• “”For the first time in American history, The right of the first amendment of American citizens in disagreement with their president and their government and to express their opinions and opinions on any question they wish – including their president – is under unprecedented attack by the President of the United States. “”
  • So, I guess these beautiful folks were sleeping during the Biden years? No familiarity with Missouri c. Biden /Murthy c. Missouri? No consciousness of Twitter files? Or the recent admission of Google according to which he shot down the YouTube accounts under pressure from the Biden administration? Or the recognition by Facebook / Meta of similar actions?
  • More importantly, than on the green earth of God the first amendment to do with the charges against Comey? Do they dispute that there are no federal laws that criminalize false declarations in the congress or interfering with the procedures of the Congress? This saint Comey is sort of safe from their request because it also happens to be a Trump critic? He is not charged with his criticisms of (or veiled threats against) Trump.
  • In addition, the Department of the Department of Redundancy calls the highlights above.
• “All Americans have an obligation as citizens of this great country to denounce this unprecedented attack on our freedom of expression and to demand that Donald Trump’s attacks against our right to speak freely without fear of being persecuted and pursued by our government must cease now.”
  • Again, how is Comey’s accusation an attack on freedom of expression? Do these former lawyers really maintain that the first amendment protects false statements in congress procedures?
  • And again, I guess it is good that they decided to wake up and decide that the suppression of the government of speech is a bad thing. Where were they around 2021 and 2022?
  • Finally, what do they hope to do with this? Do they think that it will be able to go enough indignation and angry calls to the doj that he will simply reverse the course and decide to drop the case against Comey? East that How do they think that the justice system is supposed to work? This is how they Decided cases when they were seated on the bench?

I don’t know who wrote this letter. I do not know how much those who signed it read it or how much they thought about it. I know that by giving a thrill on the leg of those who already agree with them, it is the most virtue signal was that I have ever seen. And I am completely embarrassed for the judicial power once praised.

Declaration of judges on Comey by Susie Moore

Publisher’s note: Schumer’s judgment is there. Rather than putting the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical democrats forced a government closure for health care for illegals. They have this.

Help us to continue to report the truth about the closure of Schumer. Use the promotional code Patus47 To obtain 74% reduction on your VIP subscription.