JUDICIAL IMMUNITY=JUDICIAL TYRANNY

Vanity | 2/25/04 | Ms12Gauge

[Ms12Gauge]

Don't go away. WE need the legal understanding of the nuances of this amendment. I didn't say I am totally opposed to an amendment, I said I think this one is ill thought out, and full of possible bad holes. IF an amendment is the answer, then it should be carefully considered, and scrutinized by all before ratification. It should not be a reactionary, reflexive act.

[Ms12Gauge]

Is the Judicial Performance Commission in CA a Citizen Panel? Here, in CO, we have the Supreme Court Judicial Disciplinary Counsel, and we have the Performance Commission. The Performance Commission is the Citizens Review Panel. They don't HEAR about the complaints. (a fact that I am working hard to change, plastering the information about how to properly file a formal complaint about a judge to them)They had FIFTEEN COMPLAINTS last year. Most of those were simply people who wanted to complain that Judges were rude and nasty to them. NO cases of intentional error, although we KNOW there are hundreds of valid complaints lodged every year to the Judicial Disciplinary Counsel. They received 3300 complaints last year, and sanctioned... NONE!

[Paleo Conservative]

My objection is that amending the Constitution involves a tacit admission that the judges had the correct interpretation of the Constitution prior to amendment. The implication will be that every bad ruling they make is now to be considered completely valid unless we amend the Constitution to change it.

I see your point, but it is no longer sufficient. Ordinary citizens need to take control of the Constitution away from the priesthood of the courts. First we ned to preempt the courts with a constitutional amendment giving only the state legislatures the power to define marriage in each state and to allow states not to recognize "gay marriages recorded in other states. Second, we need an amendment giving an alternate method of removing federal judges. In 215 years since the first Congress, only a handful of judges has ever been impeached and convicted. Congress doesn't even bother getting rid of judges that violate their oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." We have judges who cite foreign court decisions to rule US law unconstitutional. If the states had a way to remove federal judges independent of the impeachment/conviction route through Congress, it would do much to restore the power of state government with respect to the federal government.

[Paleo Conservative]

They received 3300 complaints last year, and sanctioned... NONE!

That sounds like the record of the Catholic church dealing with pedophiles. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.

[longtermmemmory]

""..a tacit admission that the judges had the correct interpretation of the Constitution prior to amendment.""

Not at all. It is a statement that the judges GOT IT WRONG. You don't make sacrifices at the temple when there is a tiger at the city gates.

Judges make wrong decisions all the time. It is the whole premise of appeals courts. The amendment process is there to also deal with judges who make wrong decisions.

[Ms12Gauge]

That sounds like the record of the Catholic church dealing with pedophiles. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. AMEN! I have GOT to sleep. I will be back, and bring some of my AMOJ friends. I have been telling them that FREEP is the BEST, but they have to see for themselves. Grin. They are all much more knowlegeable about this than I am. Some discussion has been kicked around about forming a Grand Jury in each state, before whom errant Judges can be brought for trial. I liked this idea, but am told that it involves each state amending the state constitutions, and I find that unlikely. Thoughts???

Good Night! Manana~!

[inquest]

My objections to the first idea are the same that I've mentioned in regard to the FMA. As to the second, if Congress had the political will to pass an amendment for such sweeping structural changes, it would also have the political will to impeach and convict activist judges.

Keep in mind also that the states effectively have the power to ignore judicial rulings of this sort. They're just afraid to use it. But they can, easily. If the courts try to force the issue, I highly doubt the executive branch will try to back them up. And this just may come to pass if federal courts try to order other states to accept gay marriages contracted in Massachusetts. If they disobey, that will be the beginning of the end of judicial tyranny. But this amendment idea will give them an out. They shouldn't have an out.

[Paleo Conservative]

If the courts try to force the issue, I highly doubt the executive branch will try to back them up.

Perhaps not the Bush administration but I wouldn't hold my breath if there were a DemocRAT administration.

[Paleo Conservative]

But this amendment idea will give them an out. They shouldn't have an out.

But my second proposed amendment would not give them an out. It would make federal jugdes take into considerations the possibility they could be more easily removed from office.

[longtermmemmory]

The FMA changes nothing. There is no sweeping change. The FMA incorporates existing common law. It returns civil unions to a states rights issue.

Any ignoring of the law or ruling is a pointless solution because a subsequent President will enforce it. Remember people said clinton would never get re-elected.

you can't trust judges, you can't even trust future legislators. This is a move agains legislation by feeeeeelings de jour.

[inquest]

It is a statement that the judges GOT IT WRONG.

If they got it wrong then there's no need to change it. I mean, what if the judges ruled correctly on something, but the result was highly undesirable? Would you then not amend the Constitution?

And as I said, the amendment will also result in the assumption that any judicial rulings that aren't corrected by amendment are automatically valid. It's one tiny step forward and a hundred big steps back.

[lugsoul]

The number of complaints is relatively meaningless when we are talking about a job which frequently requires one to pick winners and losers in disputes. I've yet to see a case where the loser didn't think the judge screwed him/her in some way.

[inquest]

Perhaps not the Bush administration but I wouldn't hold my breath if there were a DemocRAT administration.

Kerry and Edwards have already tied themselves to the wall with their own words when they said that the states should be able to work these things out for themselves. And even if they didn't mean what they said, it would still be political suicide for either of them to actually send armed personnel into a state to force a matter against the overwhelming majority of its citizens, as well as the majority of U.S. citizens. They'd find it to be far more than they could handle. They'd probably face impeachment for it.

[Paleo Conservative]

They'd probably face impeachment for it.

You've got to be kidding. Since when has the Senate had any backbone to actually vote to convict?

[inquest]

With the hue and cry that would be raised from an action like that, they'd need all the backbone they could muster, not to convict.

[longtermmemmory]

The judge may have it wrong but they have the authority to get it wrong. When a judge rules agains someone in a civil case, they often have to post a bond during the pendancy of the appeal even if the judge made the wrong decision. The ruling is still enforcable based on the valid authority of the court.

A judge is still the judge even if the decision is wrong. This is about a Supreme Court ruling that has to be erased.

Do nothing and the logic stands, do nothing and the SJC of mass is valid in imposing homosexuality on the public and taxpayers specifically.

[CyberAnt]

Right now, this is distracting. There is an election going on. First, we have to get President Bush re-elected. Then we have to make sure that we maintain the Senate, and hopefully add enough senators in order to allow the President's nominee's to be confirmed.

ONCE THAT HAPPENS .. then is the time for this judicial housecleaning. But .. the way things are stacked now, I just don't see much chance of getting anywhere with this.

And .. if you'll put my name somewhere on your list, I would love to help you work on this maybe a year from now.

[4LegalReform]

It is remarkable how the judicial branch was able to sneak in absolute judicial immunity and later indoctrinate the majority of the legal community into believing that this is an acceptable doctrine within our Constitutional framework of law. I have had law professors getting indignant upon my criticizing of absolute judicial immunity as patently unconstitutional and that only by accepting vicarious liability can our government legitimately shield judges
from suits for damages.

A good discussion on a related subject, the Right to Petition and how this right is inconsistent with the judge-made immunities may be found in a law review article, "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition". 31UWLA Law Rev. 257, or, for an Internet copy, go to
www.constitution.org/abus/wolfgram/ptnright.doc or .htm for the .doc and html versions respectively.

Jacob Roginsky, Ph.D, President
A Matter of Justice Coalition
www.amatterofjustice.org

[inquest]

The judge may have it wrong but they have the authority to get it wrong.

Rulings contrary to the Constitution are just as invalid as laws contrary to the Constitution. Until we come to that understanding, judicial activism will never be restrained.

[Ms12Gauge]

Possibly a salient fact that would illustrate the relationship between this issue and the elections at hand:
I am currently, (as a result of a comment from Jacob Roginsky of AMOJ) canvassing the county DEMOCRAP leaders in Colorado. True to Jacob's instinct, so far I have not found ONE who is not a... you guessed it.. LAWYER !!! Oh I take that back. There ARE some people who APPEAR to be civilian. Until you check their familial connections, and most times readily find a lawyer son, or husband, etc. IMHO, (meaning no offense to the lawyers here and posting, but the VAST majority are not of your conscience and prespective) There is telling information in that knowledge. I am not enamored with Bush, particularly either. But he walks on water compared to the alternative.