Political ramifications of PrEP ruling today

[BootmanLA]

In the Health forum, I started a topic about today's news that a federal judge struck down the ACA/Obamacare's requirement that PrEP be covered at no cost to insured persons. That's the place to talk about the health aspects of that decision - what it will mean in terms of people's health, both on an individual level and on a macro-level, for society as a whole.

But there's a political dimension to this, too.

It's too long and complex to explain in detail here, but basically, in Texas federal courts, you can pretty much choose which federal judge you want to hear your case if you're a right-winger, because there are a lot of federal courts where there is a single judge, almost all appointed by Republican presidents (mostly Bush II and Trump). Conversely, most moderate to liberal federal judges in the state are in larger courthouses with multiple judges (along with some conservatives), so even if a plaintiff wants to forum-shop for a court that leans liberal, he has no guarantee of getting one of the liberals among (for instance) the 8 judges on the Houston division of the Southern District of Texas.

And it's patently obvious what's going on: plaintiffs with no connection to Amarillo, including the state of Texas, flock to the federal courthouse there to file suit because they'll get Judge Kacsmaryk, who's as far-right as they come. (Texas's seat of government is Austin, so you'd think they'd file suit in Austin in order to make it easier for state AG's to push their cases, but in fact they've filed at least seven major cases against the Biden administration in Amarillo. Guess why?)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a lot that can be done, for now. Certainly any district where a majority of the judges are appointed by Republicans (like the Northern District of Texas, where 10 of the 12 sitting judges were appointed by either W or Trump) is not about to change its procedures to require all cases to be randomly assigned.

It's bad enough when plaintiffs "forum shop" - by choosing a federal judicial district where a majority of the judges are reliably of one disposition or the other. It's an order of magnitude worse when the rules are structured to let you just pick the judge you want to hear your case. We're constantly being told by Republicans that the role of a federal judge is to call balls and strikes, but when you get to pick the umpire who reliably is going to call strikes against the other team, no matter what, the comparison breaks down entirely.

[Rillion]

Yep, unfortunately liberals have not paid as much attention to the courts over the years and by not showing up to vote in the off year elections back in the Clinton and Obama years helped the Republicans control the Senate during some Democratic Presidents terms, which allowed the Republicans to pack the courts.

The other thing about bringing these cases in that one district court, is that any appeals will be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one of the most conservative Circuit Courts, have a large majority of it's judges appointed by Republican Presidents.

[BootmanLA]

18 hours ago, Rillion said:

Yep, unfortunately liberals have not paid as much attention to the courts over the years and by not showing up to vote in the off year elections back in the Clinton and Obama years helped the Republicans control the Senate during some Democratic Presidents terms, which allowed the Republicans to pack the courts.

The other thing about bringing these cases in that one district court, is that any appeals will be heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one of the most conservative Circuit Courts, have a large majority of it's judges appointed by Republican Presidents.

"Large majority" doesn't even begin to cover it. There are seventeen judgeships on the 5th Circuit (not counting senior judges). One is vacant, and of the remainder, 12 of the 16 were appointed by Republican presidents. Two go all the way back to Reagan, four to "W", and a shocking six appointed by Trump in just his one term. Of those appointed by Democratic presidents, one was appointed by Clinton, two by Obama, and one (so far) by Biden.

And even when we do get to appoint judges, we fuck it up. Most of Trump's six judges were born in the 1970's, so they're relatively young and could be on that court for decades. Obama's two picks were born in 1953 and 1961, making one of them now 70 and the other 62. Trump's youngest judge on that court is only 45, and if he serves until he's, say, 80, that's another 35 years of right-wing rulings any time he's in the majority on a panel.

That's a relic of the days when federal appellate judgeships were seen as the capstone to a long and dignified career, not something you get at the age of 40 (Andrew Oldham's age when he was appointed by Trump). On some of the federal district courts, Trump appointed judges in their 30's, including one who was just 33 (and THAT one had literally never tried a case, civil or criminal, in court as a lawyer).

Biden, at least, seems to get the necessity of appointing younger judges, and Chuck Schumer grasps the necessity of confirming them rapidly.