Judge who tossed Michigan case a stereotypical activist judge
News broke on Monday that a federal district court judge in Detroit – an Obama nominee – dismissed Sidney Powell’s Michigan lawsuit. Her ruling was what one would expect from an activist judge, in that it was entirely partisan. We need to hope and pray that the Supreme Court has better caliber justices.
Contrary to what naïve people believe, most progressive judges are not dedicated to applying the law impartially in the search for justice. They are partisan hacks who decide in advance which side should win and then retrofit legal principles to make their decisions appear valid. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the paradigm of the modern activist judge.
One of Ginsburg’s intellectual heirs sits on the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Here’s what you need to know about Judge Linda V. Parker: She spent only five years in private practice and the rest of her career working for the government. She worked in the District of Columbia Superior Court, the EPA, the U.S. Attorney’s office for Michigan, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and as a judge. Obama nominated her to the Federal District Court in 2013.
Parker is a Swamp creature whose fealty is to the government and leftism. She’s also clearly an activist, not a scholar:
Unfortunately, Sidney Powell’s Michigan lawsuit got assigned to Judge Parker. The suit raises serious concerns about the election in Michigan, especially in Detroit.
These issues include vote counters aggressively and illegally preventing poll watchers from observing the vote count; tens of thousands of ballots that were tallied in secret; tens of thousands of Biden ballot that were clearly the result of forgery, vote tampering, back-dating, and illegal mass production; and almost 400,000 statistically impossible “new” votes for Biden, which is indicative of computer fraud. Here’s just some of that Michigan evidence:
The secretiveness of the vote counting alone is powerful evidence that the Democrat-run vote counting in Michigan was fraudulent. If Democrats were innocent, both during and after the election, they would have been transparent and forthcoming (e.g., “You can see everything – the ballots, the computer algorithms, the mail-in envelopes. It’s all yours for a forensic analysis.”) Instead, through their conduct, they screamed from the rooftops that fraud was taking place.
So, what did Parker, the leftist Swamp creature do? This:
The court noted that Tuesday is the deadline set by federal law for states to resolve election disputes and certify their results ahead of the Electoral College vote Monday.
“This case represents well the phrase: ‘This ship has sailed,’” the judge wrote. “The time has passed to provide most of the relief plaintiffs request.”
The judge called the lawsuit a request to “disenfranchise the votes of more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who, with dignity, hope, and a promise of a voice, participated in the 2020 general election.” Mr. Biden defeated the president in Michigan by 154,188 votes or 2.8 percentage points.
Regarding Parker’s point about deadlines, The Amistad Project explains that the deadlines to which Parker referred are legislative and not set in stone, and they must yield to the constitutional imperative to ensure a transparent, trustworthy election – especially because it is impossible under the circumstances to gather the evidence within the artificial deadlines. The paper is written in actual English and I urge that you read it.
I want to focus on Parker’s second ground for dismissing the case without even acknowledging the evidence, which is that she was not going to disenfranchise Biden voters. Think about that, for a moment.
Parker either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that, one way or another, voters are going to get disenfranchised. Instead, what she is saying is it’s okay to disenfranchise Trump voters by refusing to address multiple, dramatic and credible fraud claims, but it's not okay to disenfranchise Biden voters even if their victory was manifestly achieved through fraud.
This judicial idiocy isn’t limited to Parker or even to Democrat judges. U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann, in Pennsylvania, a Republican whom Obama nominated, said the same thing.
Judicial stupidity and arrogance are bipartisan. Some are motivated by leftist principles; others, I’m willing to wager, are motivated by fear. BLM and Antifa demonstrated this summer that, like all fascist organizations (that is, organizations that owe their fealty to the state and have no regard for individual rights or honest elections), they will use violence to make their points.
Having excoriated judges, I can only hope that, with Ginsburg gone, a strong majority on the Supreme Court is more intelligent, principled, and honest than these lower court, black-robed activists.
Images: Judge Linda V. Parker. YouTube screengrab.