Tainting Court Opinions and Judges
This is the ‘short’ summary and more specifics are further down. So this is the ‘plain language’ version.
First off, the activist-judges will have plenty to fear from this idea. Enough marks [I recommend three] means that they get tainted personally. A tainted judge is not merely removed, impeached, stripped of pensions and perks. Any time their names are mentioned in future text books, they should be preceded with: “that tainted gavel-jockey, [add name].”
I recommend numerous other penalties as well down further.
But we shouldn’t alarm our heroic legal scholars along with the ‘bad guys’. If a judge is simply basing his or her court opinions on ‘tradition’ [aka ‘precedent’], then there shouldn’t be anything for him or her to worry about. [As will be explained further down.]
In fact, as the tainting process evolves, a lot of needless confusion will come to a blessed end. It will help new scholars because they won’t need to grapple with the convoluted interpretations of judicial activists that don’t always ‘pass the giggle test’.
Court precedents keep leading to silly contradictions of illogic or legal expectations that are either unenforceable or fiscally absurd or even too strange to take seriously. And as that mountain has grown, so have most people grown increasingly intimidated and unable to know what is legal and what is not.
It became so bad [as one example] some states even had to run ad campaigns to assure parents that spanking children is actually legal. Many families have suffered terrible disfunction and horrible outcomes due to improper child rearing as a direct result of how confusing the legal system has become, in large part because it is trying to ‘reshape’ natural law. Any ‘reshaping’ is supposed to be through constitutional legislation.
Through tainting opinions, fewer precedents will need to be studied. And as for the more venerable scholars, they would simply need to check online to find out if a precedent had been rendered invalid lately.
Here is what I recommend ...
Each censure includes a fine and three mandatory debates.
While the CSE may censure any number of federal officials at the same time, including the President, normally the Chief State Executive may not follow up on each future censure of the same person until two months have passed between each one.
[That way, the states can dismiss or replace a CSE who wages an irrational vendetta before the third censure triggers impeachment.]
But a 2/3 super-majority of the states may permit more rapid censures of named executive branch officials including the President.
After the CSE has censured someone three times, states deliberate impeachable offenses.
If the executive branch official is guilty of ‘dereliction of duty’ or ‘violation of one’s sacred oath’, then it is the duty of the states to impeach and remove the executive branch official which requires a 2/3 super-majority of states to be in agreement.
[Each state still represented through majority vote by its legislators.]
States might consider adding ‘tainting’ to this verdict as well.
They might also consider a mechanism for repealing a censure, such as a 2/3 vote by the House. And then the Chief could mandate debates over why that censure was repealed — fairly decent checks and balances.
And states might not want censure of the President to be so easy either. But I hope they consider the courage it would take for a CSE to dare censure the President. If it's for a frivolous reason, then the states should give their chief the boot. But if it's over something like Ben Ghazi or Fast and Furious, etc, then states might be inclined to agree.