- I’m old enough to remember when the ABA rated VanDyke “not qualified” to serve as a federal judge.
- Trump-appointed Judge Lawrence VanDyke, speaking at a FedSoc event about nationwide injunctions, just mused whether judges should be removed from cases involving the Trump administration if they issue nationwide injunctions deemed to be "really egregious."
- Would that standard apply to O'Connor? Or Kacsmaryk?
- Weren’t they fine with nationwide injunctions when they were against the Biden administration?
- Although, Steve, that just means you are 4. Or whenever VanDyke got the promotion of a lifetime.
- The ABA was right. Though I think he's issued a challenge to you, Steve, to recommend a few judges for removal from cases for issuing really egregious nationwide injunctions. Presumably there'd be no time limitation under this rule, right?
- [This post was deleted]
- Was he looking at Kascmaryk when he said that?
- Do you want professional troll or do you want a professional judge? VanDyke: "no need to choose"
- Republicans suggest the best way to address that is to ignore the ABA. www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...
- And then he literally cried about it during his confirmation hearing.
- Steve: Would "Really Egregious" just be treated as a "Major Question"?
- Yeah but then he made a really weird video dissent and we all laughed nervously.
- I’m old enough to see ABA and think of Dr J in a Nets uniform
