Judge Edward M. Chen disapproved by Senate Judiciary Committee (R)

All Republicans voted against him: 7-0. They passed other Asian judicial nominees with full support.

Why are the republicans paying so much attention to this no-name magistrate judge?

see the other comments on this forum

search his name

Edward M. Chen got a resounding no from the GOP elders because he has a character problem.
He prey on his own kind to please his white masters, yet use the race quota to climb up to the bench.
No decent people will trust such an individual.

That's not true--he is a great guy!

Chen is a multi-faced snake. So to speak. You can expect such multi-faced individuals to bow before powerful figures like a dog wagging its tail, or a ferocious demon spewing venom on helpless victims. His actions were all calculated...

Anyone who supports Chen will invite his treachery.

yikes---that's a bit much

To- U S Case: 08-16753 Pr09/14/2009ia Page: 10 of 10 DktEntry: 7062976

It will be an irreversible mistake if Edward M. Chen is nominated to the Federal Bench.

Recently, Mr. Chen pulled off a Catch-22 on the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court case No. 3:07-cv-04005-EMC, which Mr. Chen mentioned in his answer to the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire. On November 14,2007, Mr. Chen ordered: "No formal discovery and no initial disclosures until further order by this Court." See Docket Entry No. 80. Three months later^ Mr. Chen dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims, blaming plaintiff not offering any evidence to the contrary. See Docket Entry 110.

I was the pro se plaintiff representing myself and my son in the case above, against the University of. California at Berkeley and its officials ("U.C. Berkeley"). We, mother and son, are disabled, due to the aggravated assault and battery by U.C. Berkeley employees, and their continuing stalking and harassment. We filed suit in state court. After the state court judge was compromised by defendants' ex parte communications, we filed federal claims in the U.S. District Court. Judge Chen took the case.

U.C. Berkeley defendants did not dispute our allegations: its employees' aggravated assault and battery, stalking and harassment, perjury in the state court procedures, ex-parte communication with the state court judge, and conspiracy between U.C. Berkeley and defendants. These were indisputable, based on state court trial transcripts and hearing testimony.

After forbidding us to conduct discovery, Mr. Chen labeled our injuries a theoretical matter, fantastic or delusional scenarios, sheer speculation lacking plausibility, fantastic conspiracy, patently fanciful and insubstantial. Mr. Chen exonerated the U.C. Berkeley employees who filed affidavits, but avoided to mention the employees who did not file affidavits. He twisted the facts about employee defendants' perjury, fraud, and ex parte communication with the state judge, which were indisputable based on state court record. See Chen's order dated February 13,2008; Docket Entry No. 110, I filed a motion for recusal and a supporting affidavit. Mr. Chen refused to recuse himself from the case. Docket Entry No. 151,152,154. In his answer to the Senate Questionnaire, Mr. Chen stated that he "denied the request because the plaintiff was claiming bias based solely on an adverse ruling I had issued." However, as I found out recently, Mr. Chen received a B.A. from U.C. Berkeley in 1975, and J.D. from U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 1979. A search of Chen's name at Berkeley Law - Home reveals that Mr. Chen has been giving seminars at the defendant school, and presumably been receiving compensation for his work at defendant school. Mr. Chen was also listed as a significant donor to U.C. Berkeley law school in 2007-2008. In his answer to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Chen concealed the fact that U.C. Berkeley and its officials were named defendants in my case, represented by Gaylynn Kirn Conant, also a U.C. Berkeley graduate.

Mr. Chen's biased, prejudiced, oppressive and crooked behavior against the poor and powerless is shocking. He rules in favor of the rich and powerful, from whom he receives praises and recommendations. Mr. Chen will not uphold the laws and U. S. Constitution. It will be a tragic mistake if Edward M. Chen climbs up to the lifetime tenure of the federal bench.
EXHIBIT 1

As is the case with most lower federal court nominations, Chen’s confirmation has flown largely under the radar. The importance of nominations such as this is lost on most Americans, because they fail to see the impact a judge sitting on a federal bench can have on the system as a whole. Perhaps more optimistically, many may simply be of the mindset that the Supreme Court is always there to overrule them, so the degree of harm that could be done by any single activist judge is minimal at worst. Unfortunately, that mindset could not possibly be any more inaccurate or fundamentally misguided.

To illustrate the importance of each of these nominations on a practical level, it may be necessary to examine why lower federal court appointments are so fundamentally important. While most Americans are only familiar with those cases that reach the Supreme Court, it is in the lower courts where most cases that effect day-do-day life in America are tried. While issues of abortion, eminent domain, and the death penalty sometimes make their way to the Highest Court, there are a great deal of issues that are decided at each of the lower levels of the federal court system. While each circuit is required to adhere to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, unless their rulings are appealed and heard by the Supreme Court, their individual interpretations are treated as law within those jurisdictions. This is how some Circuits come to be considered more liberal or more conservative than others. And also why now Justice Sotomayor proudly stated that the Circuit Courts are where “laws are made” in truly activist fashion. And while this is an elementary explanation of the fedearl court system, it is important to understand when thinking in the context of lower court appointments. Often, fundamental cases are heard by 3-judge panels. So if two extremists manage to make it onto the same lower court bench, the outcome could be tragic. And while the Supreme Court would obviously be able to overturn such extreme decisions, the damage that this could do to our court system could be immeasurable. While new laws are written and interpretations change those laws minutely on a frequent basis, the unsettling effect that a few extremist judges could have on the system as a whole could be catastrophic. Unsettled law and conflicting or contradictory rulings in and among the circuits could prevail and cause a great deal of backup in the system as a whole and on the Supreme Court’s docket. The negative effects could be endless.

Chen received partisan support in the Judiciary Committee and will likely receive similar treatment from the full Senate. Expect Republicans to send a clear message to President Obama with this vote that that they will not rubber stamp four years of judicial nominations aimed at radicalizing the federal judiciary through his potential nominations.

Edward Chen: The Senate to Vote on Another Activist Obama Federal Court Nominee | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

Chen's problem is his character defects. Chen hasn't made any landmark rulings. He is just a Magistrate judge dealing with discovery motions and settlements. His problem is the rulings he made in several cases, which showed that he was willing to twist the facts and the law to curry favor with big money.

Edward M. Chen probably thought he was stepping over some tiny bug when he screwed the seemingly small litigants such as Chang. Now he knows, it is his judgment day. Any judge does evil will be held for trial at the end.