Well, not so apparently, but first today's news.
Strib.
Moron? He sued City Pages and a talented artist/blogger. Claiming he was defamed, seeking millions in damages, and of all things, he lost.
He appealed.
Lost there also, the appellate opinion stating in part:
For bias to be sufficient to disqualify a judge, it generally must arise from extrajudicial sources. See In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1310–11 (11th Cir. 2008). If instead, the alleged bias arises from the judge's remarks or opinions during the course of judicial proceedings (and not from extrajudicial sources), the party moving for disqualification must clear a much higher hurdle. The opinions formed by a judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring during judicial proceedings are not a basis for a bias or partiality challenge unless they “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). “Mere friction between the court and counsel ․ is not enough to demonstrate pervasive bias.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Mr. Klayman argues that the district court's quoting of Alice in Wonderland, admonitions for his behavior, and the threat of sanctions revealed the court's bias. Because Mr. Klayman has produced no evidence that the district court formed any opinions from extrajudicial sources, he must demonstrate that the district court's remarks display such bias that a fair judgment is impossible.
Many sections of the district court's order begin with quotes from or allusions to Alice in Wonderland. For example, the court used the following quotation as a subheading in the section discussing actual malice: “I've been considering words that start with the letter M. Moron. Mutiny. Murder. Mmm—malice.” D.E. 124 at 22. Mr. Klayman alleges that the quote implied that he was the moron and thus demonstrated bias. But the use of a literary device to enliven a summary judgment order does not evidence the kind of “deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
With respect to the district court's admonitions, Mr. Klayman primarily takes exception to the district court's following comments:
[T]he Court learned early on in this case that this approach to litigation is the norm and not the exception for Plaintiff.
While the Court would not ordinarily conclude with an admonition ․ when Plaintiff receives unfavorable rulings, he often plunges into a tirade against whomever he feels has wronged him ․ This is all to say that the Court will review any motion for reconsideration of this Order with a very sharp lens. Should Plaintiff file a motion to reconsider, the Court forewarns Plaintiff that any such motion must at least arguably meet the stringent standard for reconsideration of an Order, at the risk of facing sanctions from the Court.
Larry or anyone else believing the quote is unfair should consider the balance of that appellate opinion. As to "gadfly," the term may be overly gentle. That lawsuit, claiming defamatory reporting by Rachel Maddow, he lost. A summary judgment dismissal. As with Klayman v. City Pages. Readers may guess at how the lawsuit against Tlaib reported by Strib may end. Any reader feeling Klayman may win - are you taking bets, and what odds are you giving?
_______________UPDATE______________
The plaintiff in Larry's latest: https://lauraloomerforcongress.com/news/