Today is

Friday, June 20, 2014

Judge Expands Judicial Powers. He's Now Ruling In The Court Of Public Opinion

Wouldn't you know it? The federal judge who earlier stated that circumventing campaign finance laws is something that should not be condemned, but commended, has now halted the release of more evidence regarding those special commendations.

Soon after the official release of 250 pages of documented evidence (WalkerDocs 2) on Thursday, Judge Rudolph Randa ruled that the release of more documents would subject those involved to "unwanted public scrutiny." On that basis, he rejected a request by five media groups to release the entire cache of evidence.

But Judge Randa wasn't finished dishing out his bizarre rationale to block public scrutiny.

Wisconsin Reporter Excerpt:
MADISON, Wis. – In a scorching critique, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Randa verbally hammers the prosecutors in a politically charged John Doe investigation for seeking “refuge in the Court of Public Opinion, having lost in this Court of law.”

Seriously, to what good end is it for a judge to openly slam prosecutors after the fact? Who is he protecting?

So according to Judge Randa, the deliberate circumvention of campaign finance laws is political free speech ingrained in our culture, but public opinion is not.

Clearly, Randa blocked state prosecutors and prevented the evidence and case to rise or fall on its own volition in the legitimate court of law. That wasn't the prosecutor's fault.

Truth is, IF Judge Randa had done his job, he wouldn't have to worry about withholding evidence from public opinion. Besides, it's not his court to rule in.


Anonymous said...

How do you get rid of a federally appointed judge?

Lou Kaye said...

It is a assumed that a federal judge can only be removed through the arduous exercise of impeachment.

Post a Comment