“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts — who should have remained quiet in the first place — said.
Of course there are “Obama judges, Bush judges, Clinton judges” — and now “Trump judges.” It’s a political sin to try and convince Americans that the Judicial Branch is “independent” and not filled with political appointees who merely call themselves “judges.”
It’s why the political parties fight so hard for control of the Senate — because it is the chamber of Congress where federal judges and Supreme Court justices are confirmed (or blocked).
Our founders believed that the men and women appointed to the federal bench for life would remain politically aloof but as we’ve seen for more than a hundred years, presidents have used the Senate to appoint judges who share their personal political views.
This was evident once again this week as was demonstrated by an “Obama judge” — Amy Berman Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She is the judge hearing the case involving longtime Trump ally Roger Stone.
In recent days, reports surfaced that the lead juror in Stone’s case harbored an ardent anti-Trump bias that she intentionally hid from the court and, importantly, from Stone’s attorneys.
…Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed in a Facebook post she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone. She explained that she was angered after the four government lawyers handling Stone’s prosecution quit the case when the Justice Department intervened to recommend a lower sentence than the seven-to-nine years they were seeking.
In short order, investigative journalist Mike Cernovich managed to uncover several of Hart’s tweets, all of which were disparaging of President Trump, one even addressing him with the hashtag #KKKPresident.
“This is information that she must have hidden from the lawyers and the judge, who interrogated her before she was put on the jury,” said Fox News legal analyst and former judge Andrew Napolitano.
“The purpose of the interrogation is to weed out people that have a bias prejudice, knowledge of the case or interest in the outcome,” he explained. “She obviously had a prejudice against Roger Stone — a bias in favor of his prosecution and an interest in seeing him convicted that should automatically disqualify her.”
And yet, no one (but Hart) knew of her bias until after Stone was convicted. So much for a ‘fair’ trial.
Stone’s legal team has attempted twice to convince Berman Jackson to hold a new trial because he deserves one. And twice she has refused to do so. Now, according to reports Tuesday, she plans to move forward with Stone’s regularly-scheduled sentencing on Thursday, while she ‘considers’ another request for a new trial.
“I am unable to find any law that would require that such a motion be resolved before sentencing,” Berman Jackson said Tuesday morning, according to the Washington Examiner. “I think delaying the sentence would not be a prudent thing to do, given all the circumstances, unless I’m required to do so.”
‘All the circumstances?’ Like, a blatantly biased juror? How come that isn’t a consideration?
And would it be if she wasn’t an “Obama judge” who very likely also harbors political animosity towards President Trump and Republican operatives like Stone?
“The proper thing for the judge to do,” Napolitano said, “is to bring this juror back in the courtroom in the presence of Roger Stone and his lawyers, and in the presence of the four prosecutors who have since resigned … and interrogate this woman in order to determine whether the bias influenced her guilty vote and whether that bias was passed on to other members of the jury.”
So much for that.