Long term solutions to restore judiciousness to the federal judiciary ...
First off, in education reform, we could make Levin’s “Men in Black” and Sowell’s important book ‘Intellectuals and Society’ required study for law students or even all college students. Sowell makes a compelling case that leftist intellectuals keep ignoring the wrong people and all the harm they have caused, while Levin lays out the case of judicial tyranny.
Debates can also be part of the education reform.
But not just education ....
The Future of Judicial Tainting
So yes, we can taint a long list of court rulings, toss a bunch of black robed tyrants from the bench, expose their true legacy by listing them as officially ‘tainted’ [even if they are retired or deceased], and for those still in the judiciary we can give them the boot. We can also take away their pensions. Great. But then what?
We need a new, permanent procedure to taint bad opinions and remove troublemakers. But why not kill several birds with one stone? States’ rights can be defended at the same time with ‘anti-power’ authority.
States can agree on a single person to be their [term-limited] representative with the title of ‘C.hief S.tate E.xecutive’. There is no formal ‘election’ for the CSE. It is an informal process in which the majority of states must be in agreement with empowering a single individual.
The CSE is an ‘anti-power’ executive, able to veto new legislation, recommend that old legislation be repealed, mandate fair debates that judges, professors, or politicians must engage in [’fair’ as in no moderator, but a timer that allocates time fairly — also the debates are public and via web conferencing], temporarily taint any federal court rulings, and plan impeachment hearings of federal officials of the executive branch.
No court opinion is tainted permanently without simple majority approval in the US House of Representatives [via petitions rather than a vote to bypass the Speaker if necessary] or a simple majority of the states [via the majority of legislators]. The CSE has 100 days to obtain that approval or else the temporary taint is expunged.
[Note that with mandatory debate authority, the CSE can rake people over the coals if there's an outrage to spark public ire, and 100 days is a long time to rake those coals.]
A judge is tainted when three [or more] of his or her court opinions are tainted permanently by the House or majority of states, but retroactive taints [prior to this amendment's ratification] are not counted against the judge.
[For purposes of this amendment, official concurrence with another judge's opinion is the same as having that opinion oneself.]
[We should purge the worst judges before there's any CSE and forgive the rest with a ‘clean slate’ since many of them felt they had little choice but to conform because of the culture and indoctrination of ‘court precedent’.]
Impeachment Hearings by the CSE.
The CSE may call for impeachment hearings of federal officials of the Executive Branch. No federal official is removed unless the impeachment trial or hearing results in 3/4 super-majority of states in agreement with impeachment.
The CSE chooses a chair person who presides while the Senate and House appoint three members each to act as both prosecutors and/or defendants [whichever the individual prefers]. This hearing is via live, public videoconferencing unless the CSE and US President agree on Executive Privilege for certain witness testimonies. But the CSE may declassify any portions of secret testimony.
Participating senators and House members may subpoena up to three witnesses each and possibly more if the CSE approves, and each is allotted a minimum of two 20 minute ‘question-answer’ periods with each witness.
It is the states which decide the outcomes for themselves whether the accused should be impeached [via majority vote of each state's legislators]. Regardless of any conclusions stated in the hearing, states which are interested in the hearing have two decisions to make — should the official be impeached for suspicion? And should the individual be removed for poor job performance?
[Time to get away from ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ debates.]
If a simple majority of states agree with impeachment due to suspicion, then the official is censured and the FBI may choose to monitor the censured individual without warrants at any time for the rest of his or her life and forward any potentially impeachable information to the CSE who may later opt for a new impeachment hearing even after the official no longer serves the federal government.
The FBI must make a reasonable effort, however, to make such surveillance discreet and non-disruptive so that the censured individual can at least pretend to have a normal life. Failure to do so is potentially impeachable, as is leaking even part of this surveillance without written and signed CSE approval.
If a 3/4 super-majority of states agree with impeachment, then the official is removed, censured, and tainted. Someone may be removed by this super-majority of states post-service.
[Remember President Bill Clinton's last minute pardons? Post-service impeachment would have been helpful to hold the President accountable even during his final hours.]
[Good examples of how impeachment has recently failed to function — ‘Fast and Furious’, fraud in ‘Green Jobs’ stimulus, the Gorelick Wall, Benghazi, the Black Panther Voter Intimidation Cover-up, lack of ACORN investigation, lack of voter fraud investigation, and last but not least: IRS targeting the Tea Party — zero, zip, goose-egg. All should have triggered the impeachment process with either ‘suspicion’ or ‘poor job performance’ as conclusions. Most of these are also good examples of why the Attorney General should be competitively nominated.]
Once a year the censured person is given copies of his or her surveillance two years after being monitored and is free to declassify and publicize them although if any part of it is lewd the CSE may require that the public copy's version first be tightly censored in those sections.
A CSE may also later opt to end the FBI’s warrantless surveillance authority [regarding someone censured] unless that person is censured again on a later date. If two consecutive CSEs agree that the records of that individual’s surveillance be erased, then it is.
[Besides, the Senate has done a terrible job with impeachment anyway. And 3/4 is a very high bar — high enough to amend the Constitution. No US President, for example, has ever been removed by an impeachment trial, and that requires a 2/3 super-majority in the Senate. So perhaps 3/4 is too high? That's the question.]