The Threat of Unqualified Trump Appointed Judges

Donald Trump and the then GOP controled Senate packed the U.S. Supreme Court with an extremist majority that appears poised to undo over time a series of rulings that do not fit with the extreme, reactionary religious views of the far right justices.   Trump's appointment of extremists to the bench was not limited to the high court. Extreme candidates, a great many deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association were appointed to courts up and down the federal court system. Their appointments were not based on competence but rather their extreme social and/or religious ideology.  With lifetime appointments, these judges will remain a scourge on the nation for many years to come.  A case in Texas seeking to undo FDA approval of an abortion medication is about to bring the reality of the danger these extreme judges pose to individual rights and freedoms to the attention of the broader public. The judge in the case is a Trump appointee who given his extremist background should never have been appointed to the federal bench (a summary of the judge's anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights, and pro-discrimination views is here).   A satirical piece in the Washington Post looks at the case and the very real damage such judges may wreak on the personal rights of Americans.  Here are highlights: 

[A] ruling from a single Trump-appointed judge in Texas might undo the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of one of the two key drugs used in medication-based abortions and render it inaccessible nationwide. I hear you asking a question: Can a judge just do that? Just un-approve a drug? One that’s been tested and found extraordinarily safe over two whole decades?

In an ideal society, your rights and ability to access medicine and direct the course of your own life are guaranteed and unalterable — unless a Trump-appointed judge named Matt decides to say, “Nah.”

Do the complainants even have standing to sue? Who cares! Matt doesn’t! He’s the same judge who delivered such delightful rulings as “What if I got to be in charge of border policy, myself?” and “Maybe you can discriminate against LGBTQ people by splitting hairs in a sinister way!”

There are so many things we don’t know, but one thing we do know is that when you need the best person to decide exactly what medical options you should have, that person, every time, is a Matt appointed by President Donald Trump who hates the administrative state.

Indeed, in the world where we live, what determines whether you can access a drug is not “Does the FDA approve of it?” or “Does your doctor prescribe it?” but a more important question: “What does Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas think?” This is the fundamental principle that undergirds all our laws, our jurisprudence, all of society, all of medicine.

Indeed, there are fewer and fewer choices I feel competent to make without consulting my judge. Say I were faced with an unwanted pregnancy, or a wanted pregnancy that couldn’t be carried to term for any of a whole host of reasons! Imagine leaving something like that up to me, or my doctors! I certainly wasn’t appointed by Trump, and I don’t think any of my doctors were, either.

I know you might worry that this decision could be appealed, even up to the Supreme Court, potentially undermining the tried-and-true practice of entrusting life’s biggest decisions to a Matt. Could the Supreme Court leave the decision about mifepristone in the hands of the FDA instead?

But remember that the Supreme Court is itself full of people who decide things on a similarly rational basis. After all, there’s a Neil and a Brett— appointed by Trump, too! — both fully capable of looking at rights and saying, “Nah.”

So there’s no need to worry about Matt at all. Everything is in good hands. Matt’s.