(Photo
via
Image
Generator)
It
appears
that
Americans
have
lost
a
lot
of
faith
in
American
courts.
A
LOT
of
faith.
Who
would’ve
thought
tossing
a
half
century
of
abortion
precedent
and
rewriting
the
Constitution
based
on
vibes
(and
then
publicly
regretting
it),
while
trying
to
hide
the
luxury
trips
and
expensive
gifts
they’re
taking
could
shake
the
nation’s
faith
in
blind
justice.
And
that’s
just
the
Supreme
Court…
we
haven’t
even
gotten
to
the
lower
courts
where
unqualified
judges
play
Mad
Libs
with
statutes
and
single
judge
courthouses
overrule
the
FDA’s
medical
judgments
from
Amarillo.
They
said
“boneless”
wings
can
have
bones,
for
God’s
sake.
And
new
findings
from
Gallup
reveal
that
all
this
has
triggered
a
loss
of
faith
of
global
proportions.
Gotta
love
whenever
the
United
States
gets
mentioned
alongside
Myanmar!
Coincidently,
a
nation
where
the
courts
also
believe
in
immunity
for
assassinating
political
rivals.
That
seems
at
least
somewhat
relevant.
Hong
Kong’s
courts
are
in
the
midst
of
a
hostile
takeover
prompting
Biglaw
firms
to
abandon
China
outright
and
Syria
has…
gone
through
some
stuff
lately.
Yet
the
declines
in
those
countries
leading
up
to
recent
events
rank
only
slightly
ahead
of
America’s
loss
of
faith
in
its
courts.
Rarified
air.
Kudos
all
around.
This
crisis
of
confidence
is
entirely
the
fault
of
the
courts.
Or
more
specifically,
the
superstructure
of
judges,
academics,
and
friendly
media
who
have
either
engaged
in
or
normalized
the
sorts
of
actions
described
above.
The
latter
point
shouldn’t
be
overlooked.
There
are
voices
within
and
without
the
judiciary
who
sit
silently
as
this
happens
out
of
some
phony
sense
of
“civility”
or
“deference.”
It’s
a
misplaced
impulse
because
saving
the
credibility
of
the
judiciary
isn’t
served
by
pretending
it’s
normal
and
appropriate
for
judges
to
be
taking
luxury
vacations,
and
shame
on
you
for
questioning
them!
But
since
taking
responsibility
isn’t
any
of
these
people’s
style,
they
want
to
pin
the
blame
on
everyone
else
and
they’re
working
harder
at
that
than
they
are
at
basic
legal
research.
There’s
an
aggressive
gaslighting
campaign
to
make
this
all
the
fault
of
anyone
who
points
out
bonkers
rulings
and
clumsy
corruption.
In
editorials
and
social
media
posts,
defenders
of
the
rot
have
sought
to
poison
the
well
by
casting
any
criticism
of
judging
as
undermining
the
rule
of
law
writ
large.
Or
worse…
like
when
Fifth
Circuit
Judge
Edith
Jones
threw
a
recent
comically
unhinged
temper
tantrum
claiming
judge
shopping
criticism
causes
death
threats.
Personal
attacks
—
like
the
ones
Judge
Jones
never
could
identify
in
her
rant
—
aren’t
productive.
But
critiquing
the
reasoning
in
written
opinions
(assuming
they
bother
writing
an
opinion)
or
shining
a
light
on
jurists
taking
private
jet
trips
with
parties
before
the
court
or
taking
cases
they
know
to
be
manufactured
to
exploit
political
or
financial
bias
or
noting
that
the
ABA
rates
a
judge
as
unqualified
aren’t
personal
attacks,
those
are
matters
of
valid
public
concern.
Whenever
someone
suggests
that
criticizing
a
decision
amounts
to
an
assault
on
the
rule
of
law
itself,
it
betrays
the
foundational
corruption
in
the
system
right
now.
Judges
seeing
themselves
as
personally
coextensive
with
the
law
is
some
serious
Louis
XIV
shit.
Ideally,
judges
seek
to
interpret
the
law
and
while
their
opinions
carry
the
force
of
law,
they
could
well
be
proven
wrong.
Yet
it’s
a
core
belief
of
many
judges
—
especially
those
who’ve
draped
their
personal
political
beliefs
in
the
veneer
of
hypothetical
“originalism”
—
that
they
do
not
interpret
law
but
divine
its
immutable
meaning.
By
this
reasoning,
they
cannot
be
“wrong”
because
they
have
infallibly
decreed
the
law
and
to
point
out
lapses
in
logic
or
shoddy
research
is
not
just
an
attack
on
their
work,
but
on
law
itself.
That’s
dangerously
authoritarian
and
opens
the
door
to
corruption.
If
they’re
just
objectively
stating
the
law…
then
who
cares
if
they’re
taking
money
from
one
of
the
litigants?
Or
passing
judgment
on
the
whole
country
for
a
Potemkin
plaintiff
in
their
one-judge
courthouse?
Or
going
on
luxury
junkets
to
be
taught
what
opinions
to
write?
It’s
an
actual
crisis
when
public
confidence
suffers
a
hit
like
this.
Judges
should
be
figuring
out
how
to
fix
it
instead
of
railing
against
everyone
pointing
out
that
their
judicial
emperors
wear
no
clothes.
Instead,
the
Chief
Justice
will
probably
write
another
report
about
the
history
of
typewriters.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
