I see what you mean. But does this not, in the end, rely on the Judiciary to police itself? The mechanisms you site are good evidence that the Judiciary has ample opportunity to correct self-error, but if the facts as they are being presented here are correct, it would seem that the primary focus of the judiciary is to dig in intransigently, and say "we ain't gonna, an you cain't make us". It is an arrogance that needs to be seen by the world.
Thanks for the critique. Am I further wrong here?
When one discusses checks and balances, that implies that one branch will assert superiority over another.
Governor pardons, legislature impeaches.
This case is a real problem for the judiciary, if the public comes to review the evidence and disagree with the conclusion (as I have). It's easy (natural) for the media to confuse the facts and the public, but this case is pretty compelling on the surface, to lots of observers. It has staying power in the media, and will be discussed.
What is apt to occur is a serious diminution of respect for the judiciary. THe judiciary holds itself out as being "for justice," and if is popularly viewed as perpetrating a systematic failure (not just at one court, but across several; not just with money, but with a person's life), it will lose power. Power depend on the consent of the judged, too.
Lawyers will dicker over the legal tools to fix the proble (e.g., there was a big rearrangemnt of "insanity" after Hinkley got off on that defense), and will come up with an imperfect solution.
In the legal sense, this one is tough partly because it is life/death in a civil setting; and civil courts are not equipped to deal with stakes that high. Too bad they won't admit it.