The Federal Judges Association calls an emergency meeting about Roger Stone

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary association of about 1,100 federal judges, feels it's necessary to have an emergency meeting to discuss the fact that Attorney General Bill Barr, when made aware of an excessive sentencing demand against Roger Stone, asked the judge instead to exercise her discretion.

The facts here are pretty clear: Stone, an icky man, lied to Congress, a crime only when Republicans do it (see, e.g., Flynn and Papadopoulos), and made such weak, grumpy old man threats against a potential witness that the witness laughed them off.  Stone was a first-time, nonviolent offender.  So Mueller's mad dogs asked the judge to give Stone the harshest sentence possible under the law.  Bill Barr countered by withdrawing that request and asking the judge to use her discretion in sentencing Stone.  That's all.

Nevertheless, USA Today says the judges are so ruffled that they need an emergency meeting:

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group "could not wait" until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.

"There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about," Rufe told USA TODAY. "We'll talk all of this through."

[snip]

Trump also took a swipe at the federal judge who is set to preside at Stone's sentencing hearing Thursday.

"Is this the judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something not even mobster Al Capone had to endure?" Trump tweeted last week, referring to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. "How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!"

Rufe said the judges' association is "not inclined to get involved with an ongoing case," but she voiced strong support for Jackson.

Looking at the facts on the ground, instead of the facts in leftists' heads, it's unclear what's causing concern to the Federal Judges Association.

Moreover, one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Department of Justice is part of the administrative state.  The head of the administrative state is none other than President Donald J. Trump.  That means he has the right to communicate ideas and feelings to the attorney general, who works for him.

The reality is that presidents have always worked closely with their attorneys general.  Indeed, during the John F. Kennedy administration, the attorney general — Bobby Kennedy — was the president's brother.  Back then, the Democrat media thought it was a wonderful thing that they were working hand-in-glove to carry out the president's agenda.

During the recent Obama administration, Eric Holder, Obama's first attorney general, specifically identified himself as "the president's wingman."  During his tenure as head of the Department of Justice, he consistently used his position to advance the president's policies.

Holder defended Obama's drone strikes in countries that were not at war with the U.S., aimed at targets that were civilians or even American citizens.  He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, even though it was his duty to do so.  He used his department to fight Arizona's efforts to get the federal government to abide by federal immigration laws.  He refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers despite photographic evidence that they were intimidating voters.  He oversaw the disastrous Fast & Furious weapons-running scheme that ended up putting American guns in Mexican cartel hands, all in an effort to make guns look bad.

In other words, Holder was not about justice; he was purely an activist on behalf of the Obama administration.  And yet during  his entire time at the DOJ, the Federal Judges Association was copacetic with his actions.  Hmmm.

Barr, meanwhile, did the boss thing: when he learned (simultaneously with but separate from Trump learning) about the Stone sentencing motion, he examined the motion, decided that it was inappropriate to ask for the longest sentence, and instead asked the judge to exercise her discretion in sentencing.  End of story.  No scandal.

As for concerns about judicial independence, keep in mind that the Judiciary is independent.  Trump cannot hire or fire judges.  He has authority under Article II of the Constitution, and they have co-equal authority under Article III.  Moreover, unlike Trump, the judges have a lifetime sinecure.

Presidents can behave inappropriately regarding cases, as Richard Nixon did when he said Charles Manson was "guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason."  The worry then wasn't that Nixon would corrupt the judge; it was that he would so taint the jury pool that Manson would not be able to get a fair trial.  That's not the issue here.

Unless the Federal Judges Association properly understands that there is no "there there" when it comes to Bill Barr and Roger Stone, and that the petition-signing DOJ employees are political activists, we will have evidence yet again that we do not have an independent Judiciary.  Instead, we have a Deep State Judiciary and one, moreover, that's taken sides.

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary association of about 1,100 federal judges, feels it's necessary to have an emergency meeting to discuss the fact that Attorney General Bill Barr, when made aware of an excessive sentencing demand against Roger Stone, asked the judge instead to exercise her discretion.

The facts here are pretty clear: Stone, an icky man, lied to Congress, a crime only when Republicans do it (see, e.g., Flynn and Papadopoulos), and made such weak, grumpy old man threats against a potential witness that the witness laughed them off.  Stone was a first-time, nonviolent offender.  So Mueller's mad dogs asked the judge to give Stone the harshest sentence possible under the law.  Bill Barr countered by withdrawing that request and asking the judge to use her discretion in sentencing Stone.  That's all.

Nevertheless, USA Today says the judges are so ruffled that they need an emergency meeting:

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group "could not wait" until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.

"There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about," Rufe told USA TODAY. "We'll talk all of this through."

[snip]

Trump also took a swipe at the federal judge who is set to preside at Stone's sentencing hearing Thursday.

"Is this the judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something not even mobster Al Capone had to endure?" Trump tweeted last week, referring to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. "How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!"

Rufe said the judges' association is "not inclined to get involved with an ongoing case," but she voiced strong support for Jackson.

Looking at the facts on the ground, instead of the facts in leftists' heads, it's unclear what's causing concern to the Federal Judges Association.

Moreover, one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Department of Justice is part of the administrative state.  The head of the administrative state is none other than President Donald J. Trump.  That means he has the right to communicate ideas and feelings to the attorney general, who works for him.

The reality is that presidents have always worked closely with their attorneys general.  Indeed, during the John F. Kennedy administration, the attorney general — Bobby Kennedy — was the president's brother.  Back then, the Democrat media thought it was a wonderful thing that they were working hand-in-glove to carry out the president's agenda.

During the recent Obama administration, Eric Holder, Obama's first attorney general, specifically identified himself as "the president's wingman."  During his tenure as head of the Department of Justice, he consistently used his position to advance the president's policies.

Holder defended Obama's drone strikes in countries that were not at war with the U.S., aimed at targets that were civilians or even American citizens.  He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, even though it was his duty to do so.  He used his department to fight Arizona's efforts to get the federal government to abide by federal immigration laws.  He refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers despite photographic evidence that they were intimidating voters.  He oversaw the disastrous Fast & Furious weapons-running scheme that ended up putting American guns in Mexican cartel hands, all in an effort to make guns look bad.

In other words, Holder was not about justice; he was purely an activist on behalf of the Obama administration.  And yet during  his entire time at the DOJ, the Federal Judges Association was copacetic with his actions.  Hmmm.

Barr, meanwhile, did the boss thing: when he learned (simultaneously with but separate from Trump learning) about the Stone sentencing motion, he examined the motion, decided that it was inappropriate to ask for the longest sentence, and instead asked the judge to exercise her discretion in sentencing.  End of story.  No scandal.

As for concerns about judicial independence, keep in mind that the Judiciary is independent.  Trump cannot hire or fire judges.  He has authority under Article II of the Constitution, and they have co-equal authority under Article III.  Moreover, unlike Trump, the judges have a lifetime sinecure.

Presidents can behave inappropriately regarding cases, as Richard Nixon did when he said Charles Manson was "guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason."  The worry then wasn't that Nixon would corrupt the judge; it was that he would so taint the jury pool that Manson would not be able to get a fair trial.  That's not the issue here.

Unless the Federal Judges Association properly understands that there is no "there there" when it comes to Bill Barr and Roger Stone, and that the petition-signing DOJ employees are political activists, we will have evidence yet again that we do not have an independent Judiciary.  Instead, we have a Deep State Judiciary and one, moreover, that's taken sides.