by
Bill
O’Leary/The
Washington
Post
via
Getty
Images)
Despite
their
disagreements,
judges
tend
to
keep
things
pretty
tame
with
their
colleagues:
differing
opinions
weren’t
enough
to
stop
Scalia
and
Ginsburg
from
attending
(or
being)
the
opera
and
all
that.
We
have
seen
some
spats
though:
VanDyke
calling
his
co-workers
possessed,
hermeneutic
back
and
forth
over
the
word
“seek,”
and
a
taxing
Supreme
Court
dissent
that
shows
there
was
a
no-holds-barred
wrestling
match
of
ideas
behind
the
tidy
6-3.
But
the
workplace
dispute
to
cap
them
all
has
to
be
the
last
three
years
over
at
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Federal
Circuit.
While
the
wording
of
the
back
and
forth
has
been
pretty
tame
—
nowhere
near
a
break
in
decorum
like
VanDyke’s
unnecessary
“swinging
dicks”
comment
and
his
peers
compelling
him
to
be
better
—
the
nature
of
Judge
Newman’s
case
has
high
stakes
for
judicial
independence
and
constitutional
interpretation.
In
short,
Article
III
judges
can
hold
their
office
as
long
as
they
are
in
good
behavior.
Most
read
that
to
mean
that
if
they
commit
a
crime
or
act
in
ways
unbecoming
of
a
judge,
Congress
can
oust
them
by
vote.
The
Federal
Circuit
seems
to
read
good
behavior
to
mean
not
being
too
disagreeable.
I
say
this
with
my
conspiratorial
hat
on
—
the
court’s
given
reason
is
that
they
accused
Judge
Newman
of
being
physically
and/or
mentally
unfit
for
the
job
and
are
punishing
her
for
not
being
evaluated
by
doctors
they’ve
selected
—
but
her
tendency
to
naysay
has
made
her
stand
out.
When
she
tried
to
appeal
her
court’s
decision,
she
was
met
with
a
shoulder
shrug.
Even
though
she
raised
important
questions
about
due
process,
the
appellate
court
was
bound
by
prior
precedent.
But
you
know
who
isn’t?
The
Supreme
Court!
IP
Watchdog
has
coverage:
The
NCLA’s
Supreme
Court
petition,
filed
Thursday
night,
poses
two
questions
to
the
Court:
-
Does
28
U.S.C.
§
357(c)’s
bar
on
judicial
review
of
previously
issued
“orders”
and
“determinations”
apply
to
ultra
vires
acts
that
exceed
the
scope
of
authority
conferred
by
the
Disability
Act
and
the
Constitution? -
Does
28
U.S.C.
§
357(c)’s
bar
on
judicial
review
of
previously
issued
“orders”
and
“determinations”
deprive
a
court
of
jurisdiction
to
consider
claims
that
seek
forward-looking
relief
to
enjoin
future
unlawful
actions?
The
clarity
matters
for
far
more
than
just
Newman’s
sake.
Since
she’s
been
shadow
impeached,
the
number
of
federal
dissents
has
noticeably
decreased.
There’s
the
obvious
drop
you’d
expect
from
her
not
penning
dissents
for
the
time
she’s
been
on
suspension,
but
the
numbers
suggest
that
other
judges
may
be
chilled
out
of
breaking
from
their
colleagues’
opinions.
Most
of
the
recent
calls
to
protect
judges
have
been
in
response
to
political
violence
for
obvious
reasons,
but
job
security
matters
too.
Pauline
Newman
is
one
of
the
most
respected
and
well-known
circuit
judges.
If
she
can
be
sidelined
like
this,
every
other
judge
who
loses
a
popularity
contest
risks
being
punished
in
the
same
way.
If
the
Supreme
Court
decides
to
take
up
this
case,
it
could
bring
some
much-needed
clarity
to
judicial
self-policing
processes
and
how
secure
their
jobs
really
are.
NCLA
Revives
Newman
Case
Against
Moore
with
Supreme
Court
Petition
[IP
Watchdog]
Earlier:
Federal
Circuit
Dissents
Plummet
After
Pauline
Newman’s
Ersatz
Impeachment
Judicial
Conduct
Committee
Passes
Ball
On
Glaring
Due
Process
Issue
In
Newman
Case
U.S.
Appeals
Court
Denies
Pauline
Newman’s
Bid
To
Challenge
Suspension
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.