OPINION:
Some Venn diagram circles should never overlap: communists and mayors of New York City, blind people and air traffic controllers, and the Federal Judicial Center and left-wing activist groups.
The Federal Judicial Center, by its own account, was established in 1967 by Congress as “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the U.S. government.” The center says it “educates federal circuit, district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges and court staff … on law, case management, the judicial role, leadership, ethics, and court management.”
Unfortunately, that also includes scientific issues that come before judges.
On its surface, the Federal Judicial Center seems like a good idea: a resource to help inform judicial procedures and decisions, if it is run conscientiously and transparently. Yet, as Sen. Eric Schmitt, Missouri Republican, recently pointed out, some of the people running this taxpayer-funded government entity aren’t exactly the scrupulously nonpartisan public servants they are made out to be.
In addition to other progressive bona fides, which include dozens of donations to ActBlue, Federal Judicial Center Education Division Director Julie R. Linkins retweeted a post calling Trump supporters the “KKKaucus.”
If you suspect that someone such as Ms. Linkins wouldn’t hesitate to ensure as much judicial education as possible comes with a left-wing slant, then you are a cynic. You are also correct.
For evidence, look no further than climate change. The Federal Judicial Center boasts that, through its partnership with leftist legal think tanks such as the Environmental Law Center, it has educated more than 2,000 judges on the topic.
That is impressive, but when you are indoctrinating, you need ways to make it stick. Luckily (for the climate cult), the Federal Judicial Center has a handy Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.
When the new edition of the manual appeared in January, it featured a foreword from left-wing Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and contained “a chapter on ‘Climate Science’ that more or less would resolve any serious climate litigation in favor of climate-activist plaintiffs,” said one post in National Review. That is because it was written by climate activist plaintiffs.
Another National Review piece explains that the chapter’s co-author is Jessica Wentz, a “climate activist involved” with the Climate Judiciary Project who worked “hand-in-glove with environmental groups suing the energy industry.”
The Climate Judiciary Project is an initiative of the Environmental Law Center, as well as the subject of a House Judiciary Committee investigation into “improper attempts … to influence federal judges.”
Once the word got out about the climate chapter, the Federal Judicial Center had to drop it from the manual. It turns out that allowing left-wing activists to write climate consultation manuals for federal judges is unpopular with Congress.
If only this were an isolated case in Washington. The supposed “gold standard” of U.S. climate science, the National Climate Assessment, was canned last year by the Trump administration after Democracy Restored revealed that the document was less than scrupulous. The assessment was the prism through which official Washington viewed climate change and the guide by which it made policy.
Published every few years by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Climate Assessment relied on extremely flawed science while consistently drawing grim conclusions about the climate. Calls to update and correct outdated assumptions were ignored, and it turned out that the program had handed over the actual compilation and editing of the assessment to the environmental consulting firm ICF.
Talk about a conflict of interest.
Similarly, for decades, the North American Association for Environmental Education has received millions of dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Education to serve as the definitive arbiter of “environmental literacy.”
Yet its policy framework extends beyond scientific instruction into political activism. Rather than serving as a neutral standard, its “Guidelines for Excellence” reflect an “Environmental Action Civics” approach that emphasizes climate change advocacy over scientific inquiry.
In 2009, environmental activists working with the incoming Obama administration helped ram through the endangerment finding, which granted the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, bypassing a thorough analysis of economic and social trade-offs in favor of political priorities.
As Democracy Restored research revealed, the top 75 climate change nonprofits’ government funding exploded after that, from $350 million in 2009 to nearly $1.4 billion in 2023.
When the Trump administration reversed the finding in February, those same activists and climate industry denizens screamed in bitter protest.
That, however, was the sound of a Venn diagram tearing apart two circles that never should have been joined together.
• Houston Keene joined Democracy Restored after a career working in Congress and as a nationally syndicated journalist covering politics, including the executive branch and government ethics. Houston was born in Austin, Texas, and is a proud father, husband and Baylor Bear.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.