An
all-Republican
Fifth
Circuit
panel
has
removed
federal
district
judge
Janis
Graham
Jack
from
a
case
raising
due
process
concerns
over
the
Texas
foster
care
system.
According
to
the
Fifth
Circuit,
the
trial
judge
displayed
a
“highly
antagonistic
demeanor”
when
she
levied
sanctions
against
Texas
for
not
investigating
child
abuse
in
the
foster
care
system.
To
be
clear:
the
judge
was
removed
because
she
wanted
the
state
of
Texas
to
stop
child
abuse.
But
the
Fifth
Circuit
will
not
suffer
courts
trying
to
hijack
government
programs…
at
least
not
unless
the
Democrats
are
running
those
programs.
However,
as
a
general
rule
of
law
federal
judges
are
not
allowed
to
become
permanent
de
facto
superintendents
of
major
state
agencies.
Nor,
under
the
federalist
structure
created
by
the
Constitution,
is
it
appropriate
for
federal
court
intervention
to
thwart
the
state’s
self-management,
where
the
state
is
taking
strides
to
eliminate
the
abuses
that
led
to
the
original
decree.
Nor
are
federal
judges
even
suited,
by
training
or
temperament,
to
manage
institutions,
personnel,
or
the
provision
of
vital
state
services,
even
if
counselled
by
monitors.
(citations
omitted)
The
Fifth
Circuit
said
that?
Just
an
utter
lack
of
shame.
The
Fifth
Circuit
condones
a
forum
shopping
regime
allowing
trial
judges
to
micromanage
all
manner
of
government
policies,
from
the
FDA’s
approval
of
mifepristone
to
whether
or
not
fees
and
interest
on
student
loans
can
be
waived.
The
author
of
this
opinion,
Edith
Jones,
wrote
an
earlier
opinion
ranting
about
COVID
lockdowns,
citing
junk
science.
But
those
are
policies
liked
by
Democratic
administrations.
The
panel
would
not
have
such
qualms
when
it’s
not
about
protecting
Republican
leaders
like
the
Texas
governor.
Giving
the
panel
an
unearned
benefit
of
the
doubt,
the
opinion
nods
to
a
distinction
between
federal
and
state
agencies
as
though
micromanaging
the
federal
government
is
more
appropriate
than
a
state
agency.
Which
is
a
distinction,
though
one
with
very
little
difference.
The
Fourteenth
Amendment,
for
instance,
would
very
much
disagree
with
this
reasoning.
But
this
is
also
why
Republicans
get
mad
when
nominees
are
asked
if
they
plan
to
overturn
Brown
v.
Board
—
there’s
nothing
in
the
above
reasoning
that
would
justify
the
historic
efforts
of
federal
courts
in
striking
down
segregation.
And
they
really
don’t
want
folks
to
realize
that.
In
a
statement
given
to
Bloomberg
and
reprinted
by
ABA
Journal,
Paul
Yetter,
an
attorney
for
foster
care
children,
said
this
was
“a
sad
day
for
Texas
children.”
Maybe
if
the
kids
tried
complaining
that
the
child
abuse
they
suffered
was
a
vaccination
or
watching
someone
else’s
student
loans
get
relieved
they
could
find
someone
on
the
Fifth
Circuit
to
bend
over
backward
to
care
about
them.
(Opinion
on
next
page…)
Fifth
Circuit
Removes
Texas
Judge
Critical
of
Foster
Care
System
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
Judge
with
‘highly
antagonistic
demeanor’
must
be
removed
from
foster
care
case,
5th
Circuit
says
[ABA
Journal]