Category: Brian Vukadinovich

It is unfortunate that we as a country have such a weak and inept attorney general in Merrick Garland. President Biden made a big mistake with this appointment given Garland’s poor track record of protecting judicial malfeasance. Biden should have seen the red flag since Garland’s protectionism of an accused Texas judge, Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals with ethics violation, was publicly reported. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/time-merrick-garland-was-accused-protecting-fellow-judge-charged-ethics-violations/. Judge Edith Jones was accused of making public derogatory comments against Blacks and Hispanics including suggesting that Blacks and Hispanics are “predisposed to crime” and “prone” to violence at a 2013 speech at a Federalist Society sponsored event at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Several groups filed an ethical complaint against Jones for her derogatory public comments. The matter ended up before Garland who then appointed a special committee that included himself to handle the complaint. According to the Mother Jones article, in 2015 there were 1,214 complaints filed against federal judges, and not a single one of them resulted in remedial action against the judge. Only two people were allowed to testify before Garland’s committee during the Jones investigation: Jones herself and Marc Bookman, a Philadelphia death penalty lawyer who attended her speech and helped file the complaint. Maurie Levin, one of the lawyers for the complainants, said the investigation was “blanketed in secrecy and bias.” Levin has pointed out that although Bookman was cross-examined by Jones’ attorney, Jones testified in secret, without any of the complainants in the room. Garland’s panel refused to disclose a transcript of Jones’ testimony or the documents she filed in her defense. Garland and his appointed cohorts ultimately found that Jones hadn’t violated the judicial code of ethics and recommended that the DC Circuit’s… Read More

In the oral argument on December 1, 2021, on the issue of the 2018 Mississippi abortion law, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.” This made me think about the “stench” that is currently taking place in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago under the questionable leadership of Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes, who is currently involved in protecting a judge, Michael S. Kanne, from verifiable allegations of case fixing activity, which Sykes is attempting to sweep under the rug. The “stench” is very strong. As I took in Justice Sotomayor’s comment about the “stench” of the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but think about Amy Coney Barrett’s contribution to that stench, since she apparently isn’t so much of a committed “originalist” that she claims to be, and she apparently doesn’t really believe in precedent and in the doctrine of Stare Decisis, which is a principle that courts should follow precedent by previously decided cases with similar facts and issues to provide certainty and consistency in the administration of justice, as she claims that she supports. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-originalism.html. It is noteworthy that she (Barrett) came directly from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago where she sat side by side with Diane S. Sykes, who also has visions of grandeur in becoming a member of the Supreme Court – but it should not happen due to Sykes’ protectionism of case fixing that is going on in the Seventh Circuit, the court that she leads. It is apparent that Amy Coney Barrett and Diane S…. Read More