Federal judges cite Orwell, Bible, Bob Dylan in rulings against Trump
Are they actually going to vote on something real?
Judges ruling against the Trump administration are citing famous literary works, historical figures, and even the Bible to make dramatic arguments in district courts against policies they oppose.
While judges are supposed to stick to the law in their rulings, some have included quotations beyond the law in their rulings against the Trump administration, to the frustration of conservative legal analysts who say lower court judges are trying to get media attention by issuing overtly partisan rulings.
Judge ordering reinstatement of slavery exhibits invokes Orwell
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled Monday that the Trump administration must restore slavery exhibits to the President’s House site in Philadelphia, finding the administration did not follow proper procedure to remove the exhibits at the historic site. Rufe also cited George Orwell’s 1984 to bash the administration’s decision to remove the exhibit from the historic site.
“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not,” Rufe said at the beginning of her opinion.
The decision to cite Orwell in a ruling on how the federal government may curate a museum or historical site under its control drew backlash from conservative legal analysts. Mike Fragoso, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, noted the “lack of self-awareness with these judges.”
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan questioned the judge’s finding that “the City of Philadelphia can mandate what message the federal government highlights,” and noted that she relied on Orwell, a British author, for her order.
“What is the irreparable harm to removing some plaques, you may ask? Apparently ‘loss of historical truth’ and ‘undermining public trust.’ The judge must have been disheartened by the discredited 1619 project. (Hopefully that is not the object of the removed content.),” Wessan said, pointing to the controversial 1619 Project, which attempted to reframe the story of the founding of the U.S. around slavery rather than the Declaration of Independence.
Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, called the ruling the latest shot in the “judicial insurrection” the Trump administration has faced …
Are they actually going to vote on something real?
Judges ruling against the Trump administration are citing famous literary works, historical figures, and even the Bible to make dramatic arguments in district courts against policies they oppose.
While judges are supposed to stick to the law in their rulings, some have included quotations beyond the law in their rulings against the Trump administration, to the frustration of conservative legal analysts who say lower court judges are trying to get media attention by issuing overtly partisan rulings.
Judge ordering reinstatement of slavery exhibits invokes Orwell
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled Monday that the Trump administration must restore slavery exhibits to the President’s House site in Philadelphia, finding the administration did not follow proper procedure to remove the exhibits at the historic site. Rufe also cited George Orwell’s 1984 to bash the administration’s decision to remove the exhibit from the historic site.
“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not,” Rufe said at the beginning of her opinion.
The decision to cite Orwell in a ruling on how the federal government may curate a museum or historical site under its control drew backlash from conservative legal analysts. Mike Fragoso, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, noted the “lack of self-awareness with these judges.”
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan questioned the judge’s finding that “the City of Philadelphia can mandate what message the federal government highlights,” and noted that she relied on Orwell, a British author, for her order.
“What is the irreparable harm to removing some plaques, you may ask? Apparently ‘loss of historical truth’ and ‘undermining public trust.’ The judge must have been disheartened by the discredited 1619 project. (Hopefully that is not the object of the removed content.),” Wessan said, pointing to the controversial 1619 Project, which attempted to reframe the story of the founding of the U.S. around slavery rather than the Declaration of Independence.
Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, called the ruling the latest shot in the “judicial insurrection” the Trump administration has faced …
Federal judges cite Orwell, Bible, Bob Dylan in rulings against Trump
Are they actually going to vote on something real?
Judges ruling against the Trump administration are citing famous literary works, historical figures, and even the Bible to make dramatic arguments in district courts against policies they oppose.
While judges are supposed to stick to the law in their rulings, some have included quotations beyond the law in their rulings against the Trump administration, to the frustration of conservative legal analysts who say lower court judges are trying to get media attention by issuing overtly partisan rulings.
Judge ordering reinstatement of slavery exhibits invokes Orwell
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled Monday that the Trump administration must restore slavery exhibits to the President’s House site in Philadelphia, finding the administration did not follow proper procedure to remove the exhibits at the historic site. Rufe also cited George Orwell’s 1984 to bash the administration’s decision to remove the exhibit from the historic site.
“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not,” Rufe said at the beginning of her opinion.
The decision to cite Orwell in a ruling on how the federal government may curate a museum or historical site under its control drew backlash from conservative legal analysts. Mike Fragoso, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, noted the “lack of self-awareness with these judges.”
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan questioned the judge’s finding that “the City of Philadelphia can mandate what message the federal government highlights,” and noted that she relied on Orwell, a British author, for her order.
“What is the irreparable harm to removing some plaques, you may ask? Apparently ‘loss of historical truth’ and ‘undermining public trust.’ The judge must have been disheartened by the discredited 1619 project. (Hopefully that is not the object of the removed content.),” Wessan said, pointing to the controversial 1619 Project, which attempted to reframe the story of the founding of the U.S. around slavery rather than the Declaration of Independence.
Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, called the ruling the latest shot in the “judicial insurrection” the Trump administration has faced …
0 Comments
0 Shares
56 Views
0 Reviews
