Attn: Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein ID: LFG-2017-0007

Senate Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Sent via: Mail

Attn: Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Sent via: Mail
June 21st, 2017
Re: Opposition to the nomination of Mr. John K. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit
Chairman Chuck Grassley, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, and Ranking
Member John Conyers,
I am sending you this letter out of serious concern as to President Donald John Trump nominating
Mr. John K. Bush to the bench of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.1 I have strong
opposition as to Mr. John K. Bush being on the federal bench because I strongly believe that being a
member of the federal judiciary is a privilege and is not a constitutional right.2 With that being said, it is
extremely important for only the most qualified candidates and those with a good procedural history to be
allowed to serve members of the public by being a part of the federal judiciary.
I strongly urge you to oppose the nomination as to Mr. John K. Bush to the Unite States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I believe that approving his nomination for life to serve as an Appeals
Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit would have negative consequences as
for a various number of reasons. In this letter to you all, I am going to focus on two issues that involve
individuals that identify as women and individuals that identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.
It should be noted that other organizations have sent you all letters as to other reasons why Mr. John K.
Bush’s nomination should not be confirmed. I urge you to carefully consider their correspondence to you
as well as my letter to you all. It is extremely important for you all to make a careful decision as to this
issue because allowing the wrong person on the federal bench could have disastrous consequences as to
members of the general public.

1
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is located at: 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Its
website is at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/
2
Being a member of the federal judiciary is supposed to be an honorable position to have. That position is a
privilege and is not and should never be a constitutional right.

Page 1 of 9
With regards to some prejudiced comments that Mr. John K. Bush has made in regards to women
and individuals that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, I strongly believe that Mr. John K.
Bush’s impartiality in cases that involve women or individuals that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or
transgender would be questioned as by a reasonable person. Let us first take a look at the procedural
background as to judicial disqualification and then into Mr. John K. Bush’s comments/views in which
would raise eyebrows as to his ability to remain impartial by a reasonable person.
I. Procedural background as to judicial disqualification
The first judicial disqualification that was of a federal nature dates to the year of 1792.3 Later on, the
statute was amended and became a part of Section 20 of the Judicial Code of the year of 1911.4 In the
year of 1948, Congress of the United States of America recodify Section 20 of the Judicial Code of 1911
as Section 445. The then 1948 version of Section 455 Stated:
[a]ny justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he
has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so
related to or connected with any party or his attorney as to render it improper, in his
opinion, for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein.5
Several years later, the Congress of the United States of America found issues with the then
statute, such as: (1) the determination as to whether or not a conflict merited disqualification in which was
subjective by the judge; (2) the statute’s vague language provided little guidance as to dealing with
judicial disqualification; (3) the then statute created a duty to sit whereby judges were permitted to resolve
close questions against recusals. The 1974 Congress tackled this issues that were occurring and they
enacted a proper revision s to section 445.6 The revision was based on the American Bar Association’s
Code of Judicial Conduct of 1972. Now that the revision had occurred, the “duty to sit”7 was removed.
Section 445 now parallels what is of the Canon 3C of the Code.8 Currently Section 455 states as follows:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding

in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with
whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the
matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as
counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion
concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or
as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in

3
Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 36, § 11, 1 Stat. 278.
4
Act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 23, § 20, 36 Stat. 1090.
5
Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 455, 62 Stat. 908.
6
Dec. 5, 1974, Pub. L. 93-512, § 1, 88 Stat. 1609.
7
H.R. Rep. No. 1453, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 5, reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 6351, 6355.
8
While Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Conduct uses gender-neutral language, this monograph occasionally cites
directly to the statute, section 455, which does not contain gender-neutral language exclusively.

Page 2 of 9
the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could
be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the
spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome
of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (c) A judge
should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable
effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children
residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning
indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a
relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial
interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a
“financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a
mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the
organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome
of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any
ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection
(b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection
(a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis
for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate, or
bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial
time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned
to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in
his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate, bankruptcy
judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides
the grounds for disqualification.9
Now that the old Section 455 statute was replaced with a new one, the subjective standard was
replaced by an objective standard. This means that judges on the bench are no longer allowed to recuse
themselves in proceedings where there is an “in his opinion” argument. Now disqualification is and
should be decided based on whether his or her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

9
28 U.S.C. § 455 (1988).

Page 3 of 9
II. Issues regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals

Mr. John K. Bush, to my knowledge and understanding, has a disfavoring view towards members of
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. If there was a case that involved a federal suit as
to equal rights or regarding a plaintiff or a defendant that identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual and or
transgender, a reasonable person would harbor doubts as to Mr. John K. Bush’s ability as to remaining
impartial as far as those cases are concerned. Part of the reason why a reasonable person would
question Mr. Bush’s impartiality is because in a blog that he wrote on January 9th, 2011, Mr. Bush
ridiculed an effort by the United States Department of State to change the passport application forms to
accommodate same-sex parents. When the United States Department of State stated that they would
start asking applicants to list "Mother or Parent 1" and “Father or Parent 2" rather than simply Mother
and Father, Mr. John K. Bush wrote: “It’s just like the government to decide it needs to decide
something like which parent is number one or number two. When that happens, both parents are
subservient to the nanny state – more precisely, a nanny Secretary of State.”10

Some other reasons why a reasonable person would question Mr. John K. Bush’s impartiality is
because there is evidence that would find that Mr. Bush believes that it is perfectly acceptable to use
the term "faggot" in a public address during his speech.11 This type of conduct illustrates a stunning lack
of judgement to a vulnerable minority community. Using the term “faggot” would be the same as using
the term “nigger” in a public address and while that may be perfectly legal, I do not want any judicial
candidate for the federal bench to have been involved in this type of gross insensitivity to the
experiences of vulnerable minority communities. Mr. John K. Bush has even endorsed the views of
opponents of equal rights for same-sex couples.12 His own political views with regards to individuals that
identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender does raise serious concerns as to his willingness to
follow established legal precedent in decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), and United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) as an
example.

A. Applying a reasonable person standard with regards to cases involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender individuals

Let us say that Mr. John K. Bush’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit was confirmed and hopefully not. With regards to cases that involve individuals that identify as
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, I strongly believe that a reasonable person would clearly harbor
doubts about Mr. John K. Bush being able to remain impartial in cases that involve individuals that
identify as being lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. If Mr. John K. Bush is approved for a Sixth Circuit
position, in cases that involve members of the LGBT community, Mr. John K. Bush would need to recuse
or should disqualify himself in those proceedings. That is because Section 455 requires a judge to
"disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See 28

10
https://elephantsinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/2011/01/parent-2s-outrage.html
11
John K. Bush, A Certain Starting Place, Address at The Forum Club of Louisville (Sept. 8, 2005), notes available at
Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., John Kenneth Bush: Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees—Public
Appendix 12(d).
12
G. Morris (John K. Bush), Are Giuliani’s Friends Attacking The Wrong Man?, ELEPHANTS IN THE BLUEGRASS (Nov.
30, 2007, 9:46 AM), available at https://elephantsinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/2007/11/are-giulianis-friends-
attackingwrong.html

Page 4 of 9
U.S.C 455. "The goal of Section 455 is to avoid even the appearance of impartiality." See Liljeberg v.
Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988)(quotation marks omitted), and thus "what
matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance." See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 548 (1994). So long as a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, recusal is required
"even though no actual partiality exists...because the judge actually has no interest in the case or
because the judge is pure in heart incorruptible." Lijeberg, 486 U.S. at 860 (quotation marks omitted).

The standard for assessing whether Section 455 requires disqualification is thus "an objective one"
that "involves ascertaining whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude
that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731,
734 (9th Cir. 1991)(quotation marks omitted). And because of its "fact-driven" nature, analysis "must be
guided, not by comparison to similar situations addressed by prior jurisprudence, but rather by an
independent examination of the unique facts and circumstances of the particular claim at issue." United
States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008)(quotation marks omitted). As in this case, Mr. John K.
Bush has made derogatory comments towards individuals that identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender and he has posted comments on his own blog in which would make a reasonable person
believe that Mr. John K. Bush is hostile towards and has a disfavoring view towards members of the
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. A reasonable person would also have serious doubts
that M. John K. Bush would be willing to follow established legal precedent in decisions such as
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), and in United States
v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) when looking at his political endorsement as to opponents of equal
rights for same-sex couples and when looking at some of his other political comments.13

III. Issues regarding women

Mr. John K. Bush, to my knowledge and understanding, has a disfavoring view towards individuals
that are of the opposite sex of men in which identify as women. In a 2008 blog entitled: “The Legacy
from Dr. King’s Dream That Liberals Ignore,” Mr. John K. Bush wrote: “The two greatest tragedies in our
country – slavery and abortion – relied on similar reasoning and activist justices at the U.S. Supreme
Court, first in the Dred Scott decision, and later in Roe.”14 It is extremely sad to see that Mr. John K. Bush
has attempted to appropriate the honorable legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. to justify his own anti-
abortion political views.15 It should be noted that Martin Luther King, Jr.16 served on a committee for a
Planned Parenthood study on contraception in which he stated in one meeting: “I have always been
deeply interested in and sympathetic with the total work of the Planned Parenthood Federation.”17 Mr.
John K. Bush has also made sexist comments. In 2008, Mr. Bush referred to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

13
G. Morris (John K. Bush), Are Giuliani’s Friends Attacking The Wrong Man?, ELEPHANTS IN THE BLUEGRASS (Nov.
30, 2007, 9:46 AM), available at https://elephantsinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/2007/11/are-giulianis-friends-
attackingwrong.html
14
https://elephantsinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/2008/01/legacy-from-dr-kings-dream-that.html
15
While it is true that all have a right to believe in whatever they want to, it should be noted that federal judicial
officials are not supposed to be involved in politics. Mr. John K. Bush’s political views do raise serious questions as
to his willingness as to follow established legal precedent that is contradictory as to his views.
16
Martin Luther King, Jr. even received an award from Planned Parenthood “in recognition of excellence and
leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.” See https://thinkprogress.org/abortion-
opponents-claim-martin-luther-king-jr-would-be-fighting-againstplanned-parenthood-today-fc82b18e0771
17
https://swap.stanford.edu/20141218225601/http://mlk

Page 5 of 9
as "Mamma Pelosi" and he called for her to be gagged.18 In a 1993 amicus brief, Mr. John K. Bush
opposed the right of women to be admitted to the state-supported Virginia Military Institute. He also
wrote, to my understanding and knowledge, that Virginia Military Institute educational style “does not
appear to be compatible with the somewhat different developmental needs of most young women.”19
Mr. John K. Bush’s statements regarding women and his prior activities that have involved issues
regarding the rights of women do raise serious concerns as to his willingness to follow established legal
precedent in decisions such as Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 47920, Phillips v. Martin Marietta, 400
U.S. 54221, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 11322, and in cases that involve women who sue to prevent, stop and
to seek relief under the law as to sex discrimination or gender stereotyping.

A. Applying a reasonable person standard in cases involving women

Let us say that Mr. John K. Bush’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit was confirmed and hopefully not. With regards to issues involving individuals who identity as
women, I strongly believe that a reasonable person would clearly harbor doubts about Mr. John K. Bush
being able to remain impartial in cases that involve women or clearly the rights of women. If Mr. John K.
Bush is approved to be of a judiciary position for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
in cases that involve individuals that are women, I believe that Mr. John K. Bush would need to recuse or
disqualify himself in those proceedings. That is because Section 455 requires a judge to "disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See 28 U.S.C 455.
"The goal of Section 455 is to avoid even the appearance of impartiality." See Liljeberg v. Health Services
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988)(quotation marks omitted), and thus "what matters is not the
reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance." See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994). So
long as a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, recusal is required "even though no actual
partiality exists...because the judge actually has no interest in the case or because the judge is pure in
heart incorruptible." Lijeberg, 486 U.S. at 860 (quotation marks omitted).

The standard for assessing whether Section 455 requires disqualification is thus "an objective one"
that "involves ascertaining whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude
that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731,
734 (9th Cir. 1991)(quotation marks omitted). And because of its "fact-driven" nature, analysis "must be

18
G. Morris (John K. Bush), Thanks, Mama Pelosi, For That 700 Point Stock Market Plunge!, ELEPHANTS IN THE
BLUEGRASS (Sept. 29, 2008, 3:51 PM), available at https://elephantsinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/2008/09/thanks-
mama-pelosi-for-that- 700-point.htm
19
Brief Amici Curiae on Behalf of Women’s Washington Issues Network, Women for VMI, Frank F. Hayden and
Oscar W. King, III in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiori at 7, Virginia Military Institute v. United States, No. 92-
1213.
20
The United States Supreme Court holds that the Constitution guarantees a “right to privacy” that encompasses
the right of individuals to make decisions about intimate, personal matters such as childbearing.
21
The United States Supreme Court rules that an employer violates Title VII when it refuses to hire women with
young children while hiring men who are similarly situated.
22
The United States Supreme Court rules invalidates a state law, holding that the constitutional right to privacy
protects a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, characterizing this right to choose
abortion as “fundamental.” Further the high court ruled that a state cannot interfere with a woman’s decision to
have an abortion without a compelling interest. The life of a fetus can be asserted as a compelling interest only
once it becomes “viable,” usually at the beginning of the third trimester, and the Court holds that even then, a
woman has to have access to an abortion if it is necessary to preserve her life or health.

Page 6 of 9
guided, not by comparison to similar situations addressed by prior jurisprudence, but rather by an
independent examination of the unique facts and circumstances of the particular claim at issue." United
States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008)(quotation marks omitted). As in this case, Mr. John K.
Bush, to my knowledge and understanding, has made political comments that would conflict with well-
established law as with regards to abortion and healthcare for women as he has been writing in his blog.
I strongly believe that his comments would make a reasonable person believe that Mr. John K. Bush has
a disfavoring view towards individuals that are women and in cases that involved the rights of women
who are of the opposite sex to men. I strongly believe that a reasonable person would be able to argue
that Mr. John K. Bush would be unable to remain impartial in proceedings that involve women or the
rights of women due to his sexist comments and possibly sexist views towards women and due to his
published political views in which are contradictory as to established legal precedent as to the rights of
women.

IV. Approving Mr. John K. Bush’s nomination could be as of a comparison as to Judge John
McBryde, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Division

I want to be extremely clear that I do not want another Judge John McBryde as a member of the
federal judiciary.23 I strongly believe that approving Mr. John K. Bush’s nomination to the federal bench
on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit would sort of remind myself and other
reasonable persons as to Judge John McBryde. I hope that you all are aware as to Judge John McBryde
because he is a classic example as to a federal judge that you do not want on the bench. Judge McBryde
is currently an active judge on the federal bench that has a procedural history as to being all but
honorable. Judge John McBryde is one of the most sanctioned judicial officials in the history of the
United States of America. It is to my understanding that Judge John McBryde has been known to
attorneys, members of the press and members of the public that in the past that the Judicial Council of
the Fifth Circuit has sparred with him over his non-impartiality, his ill-treatment and himself making
things a mountain out of a molehill.24 When the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's
Judicial Council began to sanction Judge John McBryde as a response to Judge John McBryde's conduct
and behavior towards individuals, Judge John McBryde filed a lawsuit in the United States Court for the
District of Columbia in an effort as to block the sanctions that he was receiving.25 I strongly believe as a
reasonable person, in my own opinion, that Judge John McBryde filed this suit in the United States Court
for the District of Columbia due to the fact that he did not like that his superiors in the Fifth Circuit were
holding him accountable as for his ill-treatment, biased, prejudiced, non-impartial and his other types of
bad conduct that he had been asserted to having engaged in irrespective as to his profession in which
requires judicial officials to remain fair, courteous, impartial and professional. Soon thereafter the
District Court and the Appeals Court ruled against him. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear
Judge John McBryde’s appeal that he was too big and bad to be disciplined as a federal judge. Due to
Judge John McBryde losing his appeal, members of the general public were and are ensured that no

23
United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
24
Quoting Fifth Circuit Judges Reavley, Davis and Barksale: In Re: Douglas Greene (No. 99-11269).
25
The Honorable Judge John McBryde, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas v. Committee
to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States, et al. (No.
98cv02457).

Page 7 of 9
federal judge has magical godlike immunity in which they can do anything that they want to do without
being free as for the consequences as far as their actions are concerned.

Upon theory and belief, members of the public and individuals that are attorneys, just so you are
aware, have been sick and tired as to Judge John McBryde’s conduct while he has been on the federal
bench.26 I strongly believe that due to Judge John McBryde's procedural history and his conduct, that a
reasonable person would have serious doubts as to that judge's ability as to remaining impartial on their
cases and is therefore not fit to be a judge. By Judge John McBryde still being on the federal bench, I
believe that a reasonable person would harbor serious doubts as to the effectiveness of the judiciary. A
reasonable person could even argue that the said judge could have a disability27 in which has and is
impairing his ability as to properly, effectively and impartiality render decisions in his courtroom and
that therefore Judge John McBryde is incapable as to making impartial decisions in his court before the
parties before him. Upholding the nomination of Mr. John K. Bush, in my opinion, would just decrease
the public’s confidence in an impartial federal judiciary given all the prejudiced and biased comments
that Mr. John K. Bush has made towards minority communities.

V. Conclusion

The bottom line is that I do not want any future Judge John McBrydes on the bench. I say that in
the strongest sense. I do not want another Judge John McBryde on the bench. This is not because the
judge is conservative, but because Judge John McBryde has acted, to my belief, as if he has some type of
godlike magical judicial qualified immunity that would prevent the world from holding him accountable
as far as his actions are concerned. I do not want any future candidates for federal judge positions that
could be like that to be on the bench and I do not want any candidates for a federal judge position to be
on the bench that have personal prejudiced or biased views towards any minority community. I strongly
believe that members of the public have a constitutional and an international right to an impartial judge
as far as their criminal or civil cases are concerned.28 As with regards to the issue of impartiality and
individuals having a fair case heard, I personally do not believe that would be the case with Mr. John K.
Bush in cases that involve minorities that are women or individuals that identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual
or transgender. I believe that approving the nomination of Mr. John K. Bush would be not only a burden
to members of the public but also a burden to the federal judiciary as to having to reassign other judges
to review Mr. Bush’s cases under a recusal or disqualification.

26
Judge John McBryde has targeted members of the Federal Public Defender’s Office and well as attorneys that
are not associated as with that office. He has even recommended criminal charges as for attorneys who have
questioned his impartiality. See
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_recommends_criminal_charges_for_lawyers_who_questi
oned_his_im/
27
Disability is defined as a temporary or permanent impairment, physical or mental, rendering a judge unable to
discharge the duties of the particular judicial office.
28
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any
criminal charge against him." See Article 10 of the UDHR. According to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal
charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public
hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” See Article 14(1) of the ICCPR.

Page 8 of 9
As a citizen, as a taxpayer and as a handsome law-abiding citizen, I urge you all to reject the
lifetime appointment of Mr. John K. Bush as a member of the federal judiciary for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit or for any other federal court in the United States of America.
Being a federal judge is a privilege and is not a constitutional right!29

Respectfully,

Isaiah X. Smith

Isaiah Smith Campaign

P.O Box 163411

Fort Worth, Texas, 76161

www.isaiahxsmith.com

29
The reason why federal judges and traditionally state judges have the word honorable before their names in a
courtroom or on legal paperwork is due to the fact that their position is an honorable position in which is a
privilege to be. With that being said, only the most qualified candidates should be approved to be a member of the
federal judiciary. If everyone had a constitutional right to be a federal judge, then everyone would qualify
regardless as to whether or not they have a law degree or whether or not they have a criminal record.

Page 9 of 9