A Liberal Judicial Awakening? – WSJ

Justice Gorsuch writes in a dissent joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh that the Court should have intervened, explaining that however much the district court may have thought Mr. Donziger warranted punishment, the prosecution in this case broke a basic constitutional promise essential to our liberty. He means the Constitution s separation of powers.

The Constitution gives courts the power to serve as a neutral adjudicator in a criminal case, not the power to prosecute crimes, he writes, citing Justice Antonin Scalia. He adds that the decision of a prosecutor . . . not to indict is one that belongs squarely to the executive branch.

The district court, Justice Gorsuch explains, assumed the dual position as accuser and decisionmaker a combination that violat[es the] due process rights of the accused. Both court-appointed special prosecutor and the Justice Department defended the power of courts to employ special prosecutors, but their arguments are unconvincing.

Who really thinks that the President may choose law clerks for my colleagues, that we can pick White House staff for him, or that either he or we are entitled to select aides for the Speaker of the House? the Justice muses. He didn t persuade his colleagues to hear the case, but his advice to lower courts to carefully consider Judge Menashi s opinion might prevent similar violations in the future.

via www.wsj.com

It sounds like the Federal District Judge really went off the rails. Isn’t this the sort of thing those crazy Spanish judges sometimes do? J. Gorsuch is entirely correct on this of course.