"The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."

LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!

Irish Mike

Russia! Russia! Russia!

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:43:23 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:
> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."
>
> LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
> kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!
>
> Irish Mike
>
> Russia! Russia! Russia!

Yeah Right?? $2000 buys a lifetime judgeship ! Oh...
Reinhart also donated $500 to Jeb Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign in November 2015.

On 8/9/2022 8:43 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."
>
> LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
> kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!

Don't worry, He'll be overturned by the Supreme Courtesans...

On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 22:54:23 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 8/9/2022 8:43 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."
>>
>> LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
>> kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!
>
>Don't worry, He'll be overturned by the Supreme Courtesans...

I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign isn't that
pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest and disbarment if he
isn't?

On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 21:49:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 22:54:23 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 8/9/2022 8:43 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."
>>>
>>> LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
>>> kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!
>>
>>Don't worry, He'll be overturned by the Supreme Courtesans...
>
>I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign isn't that
>pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest and disbarment if he
>isn't?

Um, perhaps you missed the news but Obama isn't the President now or
the last time around. Nor was Trump running for President in 2008. So
if the new standard is going to be if you've ever given to one
political party then you can never make a decision in a case involving
members of the other political party then we are going to have a lot
of judges having to recuse themselves.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:55:35 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign isn't that
>>pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest and disbarment if he
>>isn't?
>
>Um, perhaps you missed the news but Obama isn't the President now or
>the last time around. Nor was Trump running for President in 2008. So
>if the new standard is going to be if you've ever given to one
>political party then you can never make a decision in a case involving
>members of the other political party then we are going to have a lot
>of judges having to recuse themselves.

On the one hand I do understand that you folks elect judges. On the
other hand, never mind if you contributed to a given party, I'm saying
if you GAVE TO THAT SAME POLITICIAN BEFORE YOU WERE A JUDGE then yes I
think you should recuse. I'm >not< saying "to D or R" I'm saying
specifically to the politician themselves. (And if that politician had
their own PAC - as opposed to the party's then for me that's an
auto-recuse)

I'm not saying they can't vote - though in Canada Supreme Court of
Canada justices don't since they often deal with cases referred by a
province or federal government.

As for 2008 I dunno - that's the year Trump first started putting is
toe in the proverbial water and was saying some remarkable things
about Obama even though he was not a declared candidate.

On 8/9/2022 9:54 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/9/2022 8:43 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former
>> President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to
>> former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund
>> in 2008."
>>
>> LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
>> kind of left wing political collusion.  What a surprise!
>
> Don't worry,  He'll be overturned by the Supreme Courtesans...
>

Ironically, the majority of the Supreme Courtesans will say the raid
should've been aborted.

On 8/9/2022 7:43 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."
>
> LOL!

Fuck off. The right wing judges are the corrupt ones and nobody
disputes that. Sorry you anonymous piece of dog shit. Come up with a
better sockpuppet.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 22:54:23 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:

>> On 8/9/2022 8:43 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

>>> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former
>>> President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars
>>> to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory
>>> fund in 2008."
>>>
>>> LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
>>> kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!
>>
>> Don't worry, He'll be overturned by the Supreme Courtesans...
>
> I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign isn't that
> pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest and disbarment if he
> isn't?

_Citizens United_ says that campaign money is free speech, so I'd like
see our Five-Member Junta twist themselves into pretzels over it.

But realistically, Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed the warrant for
Mar-a-Lago, has donated to candidates of both major political parties.
Does that mean that he's fair and balanced? Or that he has to recuse
himself from cases involving members of either political party?

Mind you, he strikes me as sketchy for other reasons, but I'm pretty
confidant that before the DoJ would light the fuse on something like
this, they'd dot all the i's and cross all the t's. They don't want to
give the junta any reasonable excuse to give Trump a
get-out-of-jail-free card.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who issued the warrant, was appointed by
Trump. All this partisan witch hunt talk boils down to anyone who isn't
a Trump loyalist is secretly a Democrat or some such nonsense. Almost
all the witnesses in the Jan. 6 hearings were Republicans, many of them
former Trump employees or appointees. No matter how many Republicans
damn him, often with his own words and actions, the Trumpistas will
never stop painting him as the sad, sad victim.

-Micky

The Horny Goat wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 22:54:23 -0400, moviePig
> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8/9/2022 8:43 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>> "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid
>>> at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated
>>> thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's
>>> presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."
>>>
>>> LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull
>>> off this
>>> kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!
>>
>>Don't worry, He'll be overturned by the Supreme
>>Courtesans...
>
> I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign
> isn't that pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest
> and disbarment if he isn't?

The BBC reporter referred to him as "an independent judge"
so he must be, right?

Nyssa, who wonders if any federal judge appointed by a specific
political party can really be completely independent when the
party comes knocking on his/her door

On 8/9/2022 10:44 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:55:35 -0400, shawn
> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>> I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign isn't that
>>> pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest and disbarment if he
>>> isn't?
>>
>> Um, perhaps you missed the news but Obama isn't the President now or
>> the last time around. Nor was Trump running for President in 2008. So
>> if the new standard is going to be if you've ever given to one
>> political party then you can never make a decision in a case involving
>> members of the other political party then we are going to have a lot
>> of judges having to recuse themselves.
>
> On the one hand I do understand that you folks elect judges. On the
> other hand, never mind if you contributed to a given party, I'm saying
> if you GAVE TO THAT SAME POLITICIAN BEFORE YOU WERE A JUDGE then yes I
> think you should recuse. I'm >not< saying "to D or R" I'm saying
> specifically to the politician themselves. (And if that politician had
> their own PAC - as opposed to the party's then for me that's an
> auto-recuse)
>
> I'm not saying they can't vote - though in Canada Supreme Court of
> Canada justices don't since they often deal with cases referred by a
> province or federal government.
>
> As for 2008 I dunno - that's the year Trump first started putting is
> toe in the proverbial water and was saying some remarkable things
> about Obama even though he was not a declared candidate.
>
Federal judges aren't elected, they're appointed. So are some district
judges.

On 8/10/2022 10:13 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 8/9/2022 10:44 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:55:35 -0400, shawn
>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign isn't that
>>>> pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest and disbarment if he
>>>> isn't?
>>>
>>> Um, perhaps you missed the news but Obama isn't the President now or
>>> the last time around. Nor was Trump running for President in 2008. So
>>> if the new standard is going to be if you've ever given to one
>>> political party then you can never make a decision in a case involving
>>> members of the other political party then we are going to have a lot
>>> of judges having to recuse themselves.
>>
>> On the one hand I do understand that you folks elect judges. On the
>> other hand, never mind if you contributed to a given party, I'm saying
>> if you GAVE TO THAT SAME POLITICIAN BEFORE YOU WERE A JUDGE then yes I
>> think you should recuse. I'm >not< saying "to D or R" I'm saying
>> specifically to the politician themselves. (And if that politician had
>> their own PAC - as opposed to the party's then for me that's an
>> auto-recuse)
>>
>> I'm not saying they can't vote - though in Canada Supreme Court of
>> Canada justices don't since they often deal with cases referred by a
>> province or federal government.
>>
>> As for 2008 I dunno - that's the year Trump first started putting is
>> toe in the proverbial water and was saying some remarkable things
>> about Obama even though he was not a declared candidate.
>>
> Federal judges aren't elected, they're appointed. So are some district
> judges.

And either way is corruptible. But, appointing them at least leaves the
appointer culpable for dud appointees. (Sorry, Brett and Clarence.)

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:54:46 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 20:58:33 UTC-4, TitaniumSafeDrillbits@GITMObank&vaultTent wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:43:23 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:
> > > "The federal judge who reportedly signed off on the raid at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama's presidential campaign and victory fund in 2008."
> > >
> > > LOL! Now who would have ever thought the Dems would pull off this
> > > kind of left wing political collusion. What a surprise!
> > >
> > > Irish Mike
> > >
> > > Russia! Russia! Russia!
> > Yeah Right?? $2000 buys a lifetime judgeship ! Oh...
> > Reinhart also donated $500 to Jeb Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign in November 2015.
> So he's only 75% Democrat.

"As stated on the United States Courts website, a U.S. magistrate judge is appointed by a majority vote of active district judges of the court.The current Southern District of Florida Chief United States district judge is Cecilia M. Altonaga, nominated by former president George W.Bush in 2003.The selection panel reviewed all 64 submissions and elected to interview 15 candidates in person. Following these interviews, the selection panel recommended five finalists to the Court. The district judges interviewed the five finalists in November of last year. The Court selected Mr. Reinhart to fill the vacant magistrate judgeship," the document explained.

Magistrate judges (a.k.a magistrates) hear civil case pre-trial motions, conduct pre-trial and settlement conferences, handle dispositive motions and may conduct a trial with the consent of parties involved.
In criminal cases they handle pre-trial matters, all petty offense cases and most misdemeanor cases.

They may also sign off on search warrants, as was the case at Mar-a-Lago.
Crucially however, Reinhart was not appointed by Trump, as the tweet suggests.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:28:11 -0400, Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net>
wrote:

>Nyssa, who wonders if any federal judge appointed by a specific
>political party can really be completely independent when the
>party comes knocking on his/her door

Canada tries - Canadian Supreme Court seats are fairly strictly
allocated by province so when a justice retires everybody knows where
the successor is to come from.

What happens is that the bar associations of the provinces making up
that region submit names of judges to the Prime Minister's office who
then picks one of the 5 or 6 names submitted. This generally ensures
top judicial talent without close party ties.

Of course we don't elect our judges either so it's not as obvious as
in the US which way a particular judicial candidate swings
electorally.

Which is particularly important in Canada since our 1982 heavily swung
the balance of power away from the legislative branch to the judicial
branch so there would be daily abuses if high court judges were
beholden to their political masters.

Things are bad enough as it is - we had a court decision some years
ago saying criminal charges have to be stayed (e.g. halted - which is
equivalent to an acquittal) if charges are not laid within a
particular time.and right now there's the case of a murder of a 12
year old which is uncomfortably close to the time limit.

THAT is what you get when judges not politicians have the final say.

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>>. . .

>>I dunno - if a judge contributed to a political campaign isn't that
>>pretty much asking for a recusal if he's honest and disbarment if he
>>isn't?

>_Citizens United_ says that campaign money is free speech, so I'd like
>see our Five-Member Junta twist themselves into pretzels over it.

No, that's Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In the 1974 amendments to the FEC
Act of 1971, Congress limited soft-money contributions and expenditures by
corporations. This was found unconstitutional. Taft-Hartley had already
prohibited political expenditures by labor unions. Hard money corporate
contributions have been illegal since the Tillman Act of 1907.

Hard money is a direct contribution to the candidate's campaign or to
the candidate's political party.

Soft money are political campaign contributions and expenditure by a
third-party entity that is not coordinated with the candidate or his
campaign committee or his political party.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) was about McCain-Feingold's prohibition on
soft money expenditures by civic organizations, businesses, and labor
unions. McCain-Feingold was found to be unconstitutional, and so was the
labor union political expenditure prohibition in Taft-Hartley.

It was rather an activist opinion that went well beyond the facts of the
case.

>. . .

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> Canada tries - Canadian Supreme Court seats are fairly strictly
> allocated by province so when a justice retires everybody knows where
> the successor is to come from.
>
> What happens is that the bar associations of the provinces making up
> that region submit names of judges to the Prime Minister's office who
> then picks one of the 5 or 6 names submitted. This generally ensures
> top judicial talent without close party ties.
>
> Of course we don't elect our judges either so it's not as obvious as
> in the US which way a particular judicial candidate swings
> electorally.

Federal judges aren't elected in the U.S. A lifetime appointment is
supposed to sever their ties to whoever appointed them. Certainly there
are some historical Supreme Court justices who ended up disappointing
the presidents that appointed them, Earl Warren probably being the most
notable example in living memory. But there's no real immunity from
politics, when you consider that an ambitious judge in a lower court
wants to catch the eye of a president for appointment to a higher
position. And there haven't been any shockers on the SCOTUS for a while
now.

-Micky

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>Canada tries - Canadian Supreme Court seats are fairly strictly
>>allocated by province so when a justice retires everybody knows where
>>the successor is to come from.

>>What happens is that the bar associations of the provinces making up
>>that region submit names of judges to the Prime Minister's office who
>>then picks one of the 5 or 6 names submitted. This generally ensures
>>top judicial talent without close party ties.

>>Of course we don't elect our judges either so it's not as obvious as
>>in the US which way a particular judicial candidate swings
>>electorally.

>Federal judges aren't elected in the U.S. A lifetime appointment is
>supposed to sever their ties to whoever appointed them. Certainly there
>are some historical Supreme Court justices who ended up disappointing
>the presidents that appointed them, Earl Warren probably being the most
>notable example in living memory.

Actually, he's not. Historical studies of his Supreme Court opinions
have demonstrated that he voted as Eisenhower anticipated on business
decisions. Eisenhower himself was both reactionary and progressive on
civil rights issues so despite certain short-term political consequences
in the fall out from Warren's opinions that Eisenhower didn't want to
have to deal with, the two men were somewhat aligned on civil rights. I
don't believe Eisenhower had ever put all that much thought into rights
at arrest, search and seizure, and rights at trial, which were Warren's
most important contributions to criminal law jurisprudence.

>But there's no real immunity from politics, when you consider that an
>ambitious judge in a lower court wants to catch the eye of a president
>for appointment to a higher position. And there haven't been any shockers
>on the SCOTUS for a while now.

Bostock v. Clayton County was just in 2020, with an expansive reading of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protecting workers against discrimination
on the basis of sex. How fortuitous of you to have anticipated Gorsuch's
opinion.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/in-gorsuch-opinion-supreme-court-rules-gay-transgender-workers-protected-by-title-vii