New York judge Juan Merchan, who just denied another motion against President-elect Trump, may be an extreme political ideologue, but like all judges, he works for a government institution.  He takes orders and follows directions.

Former federal appellate judge Richard Posner, appointed by Ronald Reagan, wrote a book called “How Judges Think”.  Unfortunately, it should have been called “How Judges Behave”, because the job of judging really doesn’t rest on thinking; it rests on issuing a ruling, and more times than not, these rulings are wrong in law, and are also not subject to written explanations.  They’re often just fiat.

Judge Merchan just proved that. He denied Trump’s latest motion to dismiss concerning the irregular use of witnesses against him, stating “The People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”

Apparently the judge still believes that the “executive branch” works on its own by unelected staff. As the Biden administration proved, no actual “president” was necessary, therefore, no interference can occur, and the office is insulated.  This is classic legal “workaround” reasoning taught in today’s law schools.

Of course, none of the actual assertions involving business records were ever proven, so the judge merely argues by a fallacy of assertion.  And his assertion that no “intrusion” now exists is simply his personal opinion. Moreover, what “people” is he asserting will benefit, and in what way?

But he makes another fascinating logical error: he overlooks that his decision is itself an intrusion into the Executive Office, and a legal violation.  It takes a fraudulent charge against a former president, and then converts it into an active interference in the constitutional duties of the executive branch.

The judge tries to sound resolute (“not everyone is going to roll over”) but he’s not acting independently—he’s following directions, and letting himself be used as an instrument of political blackmail against an incoming president. Who is actually controlling the judge, and the judiciary at this point, should be considered, because it appears to be more than just political revenge. It appears to be a far higher crime.

Matthew G. Andersson is the author of the upcoming book “Legally Blind,” concerning ideology and the law.  He is a former CEO and has testified to the U.S. Senate. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago.

Image generated by AI.