Schumer threatens

[George K]

If you don't do what I want, "Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Thursday, Senator Charles Schumer, the Majority Leader, sent a letter to the presiding officer of a federal court. No, it was not Chief Justice Roberts. Senator Durbin has that task locked down. Rather, Schumer sent the letter to Chief Judge Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The theme, if you couldn't guess, concerns case assignment in single-judge divisions in Amarillo, Wichita Falls, and Lubbock. (I've written about this topic at some length here and here.)

Schumer charged:

Even though the Northern District has twelve active judges and another four senior judges who still hear cases, your orders provide that civil cases filed in many divisions are always assigned to a single judge, or to one of just a few. Cases filed in the Amarillo Division are always assigned to Judge Kacsmaryk; cases filed in the Wichita Falls Division are always assigned to Judge O'Connor; and cases filed in the Abeline, Lubbock, and San Angelo Divisions are split between just two judges. As a result of your recent assignment orders, plaintiffs in your district can now effectively choose the judge who will hear their cases.

Schumer issued an ultimatum: the court should "randomly" assign cases filed in "rural divisions," or else.

The Northern District of Texas could, and should, adopt a similar rule for all civil cases. Currently, a federal statute allows each district court to decide for itself how to assign cases. This gives courts the flexibility to address individual circumstances in their districts and among their judges. But if that flexibility continues to allow litigants to hand-pick their preferred judges and effectively guarantee their preferred outcomes, Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements.
It has come to this. The Senate Majority leader, who has no chance of actually passing court reform legislation, is issuing empty ultimatums to a federal judge. Anyone who can count to sixty knows such "prescriptive requirements" are dead on arrival. And certainly Schumer knows that as well. But Schumer's intent, like that of Durbin, is not to actually engage in good-faith discussions with the judiciary. Rather the goal, as always, is to undermine the authority of judges he disagrees with.

[Jolly]

I've about had enough of that idiot.

He loves to threaten judges for some reason.

[taiwan_girl]

From my understand, it is pretty common to "judge shop" to file a lawsuit.

[jon-nyc]

Venue shopping is usually about juries.

People do judge shop but there’s still traditionally an element of chance to it. The 9th circuit leans liberal, but not all the judges are liberal. The fifth circuit, same thing on the conservative side. Most of the time judges are assigned on rotation so there’s luck involved.

This Texas district is an outlier and it is well within the purview of Congress to address it.

[Mik]

Isn't he just judge shopping in his own way?

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Schumer threatens:

I've about had enough of that idiot.

He loves to threaten judges for some reason.

Me too, @Jolly. Me too.