In a striking display of what some might call hypocrisy, Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho has publicly criticized fellow judges for possessing an "overinflated view of their intelligence and abilities," despite facing similar criticisms himself. In a new article for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Ho argues that many judges believe they are superior in understanding politics and national security, areas he claims they are ill-equipped to handle.

This criticism from Ho is ironic, considering his own judicial decisions have been controversial. For instance, his rulings on Second Amendment issues and attempts to exert influence over Yale Law School have been seen as politically motivated and legally questionable. His actions suggest a confidence in personal judgment that could be seen as the very arrogance he condemns.

Ho's article seems less about judicial humility and more about aligning with political currents, particularly those favored by former President Donald Trump. He criticizes the judiciary for not supporting the executive branch enough, particularly when it goes against Trump's agenda. Despite calling for judges to adhere strictly to the law, Ho appears to advocate for judicial support of the political branches when it suits certain interests.

The judge also touches on the topic of judicial power, suggesting that the judiciary is not truly a co-equal branch of government but rather has a limited role. This interpretation starkly contrasts with the established principle of checks and balances foundational to the U.S. Constitution.

Ho's commentary extends to criticizing the treatment of judges based on geographic and political biases, alleging a double standard in how judicial actions are defended or attacked. However, he fails to address the complex issues surrounding forum shopping and the ethical controversies involving prominent justices which undermine his arguments.

Furthermore, Ho dismisses concerns over judicial security, trivializing serious threats made against judges as overreactions. This minimization overlooks the real dangers faced by judges, a point made painfully clear by incidents like the attack on the family of Judge Esther Salas.

In conclusion, while Judge Ho calls for more humility and respect for the law within the judiciary, his critiques and the timing of his own judicial controversies suggest that his motivations might not be as straightforward as they appear. His remarks have sparked discussions about the integrity and impartiality expected of judges and whether Ho himself meets these standards.