Staff Reports
The latest episode in the ongoing circus that is the federal judiciary showcases three judges who seem more interested in politics than justice. In a bold move that defies the traditional norms of the bench, Judge James Andrew Wynn from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, along with his judicial pals, decided they’d much rather stick around than let President Trump pick their replacements. Apparently, the allure of wrangling over courtroom decisions proved stronger than a quiet retirement.
Judge Wynn, upon realizing that his supposed successor wouldn’t be making it through the Senate confirmation process—thanks to some much-needed Republican scrutiny—canceled his planned retreat into semi-retirement. This erratic behavior has raised eyebrows across the aisle, as many Republicans now find themselves grappling with the unprecedentedly shameless partisan politics that seem to be creeping into the judiciary. They aren’t looking for unexpected surprises from Congress; they definitely don’t want it from the judge’s chambers.
Judges defy Trump by revoking retirements, blocking him from naming replacementshttps://t.co/FI3LjS0TEu pic.twitter.com/KimG0V8KIO
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 16, 2024
In addition to Wynn, U.S. District Judges Max Cogburn and Algenon Marbley have also pulled a fast one, reversing their announced retirements after Trump’s election victory. Perhaps they thought they could impose their liberal ideals on the federal court system for a bit longer. Republican Senator Thom Tillis aptly identified their actions as a sign that certain judges are behaving less like impartial arbiters and more like politicians in robes, which is both disheartening and a symptom of a growing trend. After all, who needs a Constitution when you have a grudge against Trump?
This unfolding drama has caught the attention of Senate leaders, with Mitch McConnell expressing particular concern. His warning that these judges could face substantial ethical complaints echoes through the halls of the Senate. The idea that judges might indulge in petty political games, only to be shielded from the consequences, is not just alarming; it suggests a significant erosion of trust that the American public has in the judiciary to remain unbiased. You don’t need to be a legal scholar to recognize when the scales of justice are tipping.
Could the judges’ decisions to remain on the bench stem from their past decisions? Perhaps. After all, Wynn supports dubious policies like allowing transgender students to choose their bathroom based on feelings rather than biological facts. But at the end of the day, the sitting judges’ willingness to rescind retirement decisions smells more of political self-preservation than genuine concern for justice. They would prefer to keep their seats warm rather than face the reality of their own judicial decisions being overturned or deemed irrelevant.
In a world where judges are supposed to interpret laws rather than craft them, this latest revelation signals a troubling trend in the federal courts. Instead of upholding the Constitution, certain judges seem ready to wave the flag of partiality, ready to play politics rather than adhere to their oaths. The consequences of this existing trend are likely to be felt for years to come as these judges desperately cling to their own power, defying the will of the people and the principles they claim to uphold. The scene is set for a showdown neither party is likely to forget anytime soon.
