That's the title of this WSJ op-ed by our very own Judge Roy Altman. It starts this way:
My family in Caracas awoke to loud explosions on Saturday morning. They came to learn, at daybreak, that the country’s repressive dictator, Nicolas Maduro, had been seized in a daring raid by American commandos. “God willing,” my cousin whispered into a phone, still afraid of who might be listening, “this is the end of our decades-long nightmare.”
That’s a hope my family shares with the millions of Venezuelans who have been exiled over the past two decades.
I’m only the second Venezuelan-born federal judge in U.S. history. A few years ago, at the end of an emotional and lengthy federal-murder trial, I went to thank the jurors for their weekslong service to our country. When I entered the jury room, I found the foreman, a man in his mid-40s, fighting back tears. He explained that he had read about my own family’s journey from Caracas to South Florida, that he too had fled Venezuela with his family and that he only wished his grandfather—a lawyer who had been forced to escape the Maduro regime—could have lived long enough to witness what our jurors had seen: an important federal trial in America, presided over by a free Venezuelan-American judge and a free Venezuelan-American foreman.
“One day,” I promised as I embraced him, “you’ll live to see a free Venezuelan justice system too.”
9 comments:
I guess it depends on what you mean by a free justice system. Seems like invasion of a sovereign nation to install the leadership of the invader’s choice, overtly with the intent of sending the invader’s companies to exploit its natural resources, isn’t quite it.
Sounds nice. Totally divorced from reality though. The same socialist govt remains in place, and very likely made a deal with our govt. Trump dissed the woman who actually won the election in the “victory” speech as having no support, because he doesn’t like her bc she won “his” Nobel Peace Prize. And they nakedly said it’s about stealing the countries resources, which I guess might be good for us if you don’t think the rule of law has greater benefits, but it is pretty hard to argue it’ll be good for the Venezuelan people.
And, the vice president, is motivated in part by the torture and murder of her father by a prior right wing government Venezuela. Only difference between the decades seem to be whose neck the Venezuelan government boot will be pressed on.
Maduro in Venezuela was controlling the world's largest oil reserves, and was undermining the U.S. dollar by trading Venezuelan oil using BRICS, and avoiding trading oil in U.S. dollars, thus undermining the U.S. dollar's status as the world's leading reserve currency, which affects everything in the free world.
Capitalists are for the dollar, commies are for BRICS.
Take your pick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
The extent to which this piece is based on complete fiction really makes one question Altman's ability to do his job as a judge - to impartially weigh facts. Either he is ignorant of the open and obvious fact that Trump is purposefully maintaining Maduro's regime, including all his henchmen, or he is deliberately overlooking that fact to spin this piece so he can score points to get his next gig.
And even aside from the vapidity of this particular opinion piece, isn't it inappropriate for a judge to be positioning himself as such a brazenly political figure? This, and Altman's Israel advocacy, are just one step away from Emil Bove attending a Trump rally. He's using his position as judge to be a louder lawyer. Not how our judges should be acting.
Altman should read this piece from one of his colleagues.
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2026/01/Not-Enough-Respect-Ho-final.pdf
Hate to rain on the good judge's parade but consider:
1. The American Civil War was fought to end slavery. Yet, after the election of 1876, blacks were treated as third rate human beings for the next 90 years.
2. WWI was fought to neuter the German military. How did that work out?
3. WWII was fought, at least from the Western perspective, to free Europe from totalitarianism. Tell it to the Eastern Europeans.
4. The list goes on and on. One thing is certain. Irony is the great leveler of lofty ideals and hubris.
Washington Post: Trump says Venezuela stole U.S. oil, land and assets. Here’s the history. The government of the oil-rich nation took control of its petroleum industry in 1976, nationalizing hundreds of private businesses and foreign-owned assets.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/20/venezuela-oil-nationalization-expropriation/
Re: link to the Harvard Law article of Judge James C. Ho.
Judge Ho fails to understand that lawyers admitted to practice are part of the judicial branch of government. (Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866). On page 3 of Ho's Harvard Journal diatribe, The Myth of the Co-Equal Judiciary, Ho wrote: "Judges don’t write the law. Judges don’t execute the law. And that’s for one simple reason. As Americans, we believe that we can govern ourselves."
Judge Ho is mistaken. Every lawyer admitted to practice is a member of the judicial branch; that means every such lawyer elected to the legislature, from Ilhan Omar to Ted Cruz, is in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Every such lawyer elected to the executive branch, from Kamala Harris to JD Vance, is in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
America is a uniparty, Democrats and Republicans are just two horns on the same goat.
The uniparty is the judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts is the King of the uniparty. Lifetime appointment, like a real king. CJ Roberts has 1.3 million Esquires at his service.
The judiciary does not believe nonlawyer Americans can govern themselves. Why? To paraphrase Judge Ho himself, see page 2, paragraph 4 of his diatribe:
Too many lawyers think that they’re better than other people. Too many lawyers have an over inflated view of their intelligence and their abilities. Too many lawyers think they know politics—when they don’t. Too many lawyers think they know national security—when they don’t. In short, too many lawyers have forgotten the virtue and value of humility. And I think a big part of the blame goes to the notion of judicial supremacy, because every lawyer admitted to practice is a member of the judicial branch of government.
Also see The Secret Life of Judges (lawyer-judge bias), 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007), by The Honorable Dennis Jacobs.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss6/4/
"I sometimes think that the problem at bottom is really a lack of respect by lawyers for other people. Judges live chiefly in a circle of lawyers. But outside that circle there are people who are just as fully absorbed by other pursuits that deserve consideration and respect. Judges need a heightened respect for how nonlawyers solve problems, reach compromises, broker risks, and govern themselves and their institutions. There are lawyers on the one hand; and just about everybody else is the competition in the framing of values and standards of behavior." (par. 4-5, page 2861)
"The legal mind is indispensable to lawyering, and for other purposes it is perfectly okay in its way. But it has its limitations. For example, every problem-solving profession except ours--quickly adopts as preferred the solution that is simplest, cheapest, and most efficacious, or (as they say) elegant... (par. 5, p. 2862)
"As a matter of self-awareness and conscience, judges should accept that the legal mind is not the best policy instrument, and that lawyer-driven processes and lawyer-centered solutions can be unwise, insufficient, and unjust, even if our friends and colleagues in the legal profession lead us that way. For the judiciary, this would mean a reduced role, but not a diminished one if the judiciary is elevated by considerations of honor, self-restraint, and respect for other influences." (last par., p. 2863)
The legal branch has ruined America because the judiciary does not believe nonlawyer Americans can govern themselves.
Post a Comment