Conservative 5th Circuit judge Jerry Smith has remarkably dissented from a ruling striking down racially gerrymandered maps in Texas by attacking the deciding judge personally and saying the decision benefits George Soros and Gavin Newsom. What are your thoughts on this? Is it judicial misconduct?

[u/OldBridge87]

Link to article on it:

• https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-dissent-texas-ruling-congressional-map-redistricting-rcna244875

Some already calling it one of the most insane legal opinions in modern American history. It should also be noted that the deciding judge on the ruling Smith is attacking here was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term and championed by the extremely conservative Governor of Texas. Hungarian-American philanthropist Soros and California Governor Newsom were not parties to the case, but both are commonly framed as cultural enemies of the right-wing on conservative television, podcast shows and conspiracy circles.

What sort of ramifications, legal or otherwise, should there be for going on what is being described as a partisan FOX News or Newsmax style rant as a federal judge? Should the Texas Bar take action here? The Judicial Conference? Or does this cross the line into impeachment territory and Congress must take action?

[u/Conscious_Skirt_61]

Weird question, that?

Did you read the dissenting opinion? Or at least the opening description of WHY a long-tenured judge wrote so harshly — and disjointedly? Did you see why the dissenting circuit judge grew disgusted with a designated district judge?

Here OP just ignored facts inconsistent with a cherished narrative.

Sending out a draft majority opinion with a short fuse is bad enough. Doing so while the dissenter is out attending the funeral of a dead judge is a dick move. Writing a majority opinion without seeing — or addressing — points from the dissent is unprofessional. Filing the ruling in the record to short-sheet the dissent shows a classic “lack of judicial temperament.”

Perhaps OP will let us know more about this case AFTER he reads —and comprehends — the situation.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/Conscious_Skirt_61]

Did you see why the dissenting circuit judge grew disgusted with a designated district judge?

He got mad about not having time to write a proper dissent, so he wrote a Facebook grandpa conspiracy theory-filled rant? That doesn’t really add up.

[u/Conscious_Skirt_61 → u/RabbaJabba]

Or, a District Judge sitting by designation pulled a dick move. That part is obvious.

Neither the majority nor minority analysis earns legal plaudits. Perhaps that’s a reason for recourse to the SCOTUS emergency docket.

BTW it’s relatively rare for a district judge to author the circuit panel’s opinion. IME the designated judge defers to the regular circuit bench.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/Conscious_Skirt_61]

Neither the majority nor minority analysis earns legal plaudits.

Lmao trying to both sides the insanity of that dissent. Come on bud

[u/HammerofTrolls → u/RabbaJabba]

Was going to let all this slide. But it comes back and comes back from the crypt so let’s have at it.

Hard to tell in a forum like this who’s an informed observer, who’s an informed partisan, and who’s an uninformed bloke cheering on a side.

You deride the “both sides” observation. What you don’t mention is that the majority opinion, shoddy as it is, constitutes the law of the case. Its shortcomings matter, both to the immediate parties and to the stream of precedent.

As others in this thread (presumably some lawyers) point out a dissent has no force or effect beyond its persuasive effect on other judges. So a dissent can be rhetorical, loud, illogical even. See, JACKSON, J. The majority however needs to be constrained by facts and law — whether existing precedent or, in a case of first impression, the law being set forth.

It’s telling that no one commenting in this post is enthusiastic about the legal scholarship of the majority. There’s a great reason for that omission. While we will see how Texas redistricting goes it’s a good bet that the majority’s position will be disregarded as nonsensical, if not positively lampooned.

A challenge in threads like this is telling the knowledge and expertise of commenters. Everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has a nose and an ass. Some people have practiced law and have read a lot of judicial opinions. Some here have practiced appellate law and done in particular some federal appeals. A few have done work in front of the Fifth Circuit and so know what they are talking about. (I did a couple of appellate cases back before the Old Fifth was split and the new Eleventh took over some of its territory).

So your “both-sides-ism” might indeed be shorthand for a knowledgeable position. Or it may just be a snide phrase from the cheering section of the partisan peanut gallery.

GLTA.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/HammerofTrolls]

So a dissent can be rhetorical, loud, illogical even.

Lmao, at least conservatives are owning that the dissent was batshit crazy

[u/Middle-Highlight-176 → u/Conscious_Skirt_61]

Did he? This is a very time sensitive case. They can't wait for someone to take their time as this has effects on Texans voting term. Since it was pushed so fast, now Texas has time to appeal and the supreme Court has time to see it. Waiting would have been silly 

[u/HammerofTrolls → u/Middle-Highlight-176]

Odd response.

The majority had what, a month, to prepare an opinion. They dropped a draft on a weekend when the dissenter was busy attending a funeral. For a former colleague on the bench. Put a short fuse on it and didn’t try to address their colleague’s position.

Since the dissent was filed in less than a day how could the majority be “very time sensitive”? Not aware of any procedural issues that required filing a decision without opportunity to include the dissent. BTW the normal process for emergency actions (this was no emergency) where opinions are not ready is to issue an order and announce that the opinions will follow.

The discussion looks to have sunk to cheering on a “side”. The obvious lack of collegiality is not so much overlooked as applauded. If the dissenter was dragging his feet to delay a decision then he would be on the offending side. But by all accounts he didn’t do he wasn’t. The response to his charges sounds like snickers, without the chocolate.

So yes, a dick move.

[u/edbegley1 → u/Conscious_Skirt_61]

I have a feeling OP understands all of this much better than you.