Posted on 07/05/2025 1:25:32 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Much as 16th-century Europe was anchored by respect for religious institutions, the United States is today united by respect for its Constitution, a sacred document to which citizens, civil servants, and the military all regularly swear allegiance. Unlike the constitutions of France or Germany, which have changed with the political seasons, the American Constitution has functioned effectively for nearly 250 years.
Yet nowhere does the Constitution give any one of 677 unelected district-court judges the authority to block the policies of an elected president, as they’ve been doing regularly for the past decade by issuing nationwide injunctions. These injunctions cover everyone in the country, not just those who brought the case.
Do not scoff at the possibility of a constitutional reformation. For centuries, the Pope was a powerful and respected figure throughout Europe, until one day he wasn’t. Today our judiciary is powerful, but there is a large element of faith and mystery upholding respect for the Supreme Court. The justices reside in a building designed to resemble a Roman temple. They appear in costumes resembling the robes of a high priest and inform us that, like oracles, only they are qualified to decipher the constitution. As with the papacy, faith in the Supreme Court will quickly evaporate if it endorses the widespread abuse of contrived practices not found in scripture.
Luther’s Reformation became a political as much as a religious event. Today, the authority of district court judges has become a political as much as a legal issue.
Hopefully, last week’s decision will end the abuse of judge shopping to block executive orders. We do not need a constitutional reformation. We need the Lutherans and Catholics on the Supreme Court to firmly rein in highly partisan district court judges before someone nails 95 Theses to their courthouse door.
(Excerpt) Read more at unherd.com ...
I would truly like to see an AI level to our justice system. Many cases (I’m thinking about divorce, for one) are really about incomes and assets and verified past behavior which may be objectionable. Today, a woman judge is pretty likely to take everything away from the man, and give everything in the world to the woman. Humans make decisions like that. But an AI might make a rational decision based primarily on math and logic. Of course, the AI decision could not be a final decision. A human should review any legal case, to see if something went wrong, or if the AI model needs adjustment. But the AI could lighten the workload while improving quality. Think of the persecution of Trump — an emotionless computer would NOT have made the decisions that Boasberg made. Totally illogical. And poor Rudy Giuliani. That guy expressed an opinion. Some judge decided he had to pay out something like $140M because his opinion was “wrong”. An AI would not do that — unless it were deliberately badly programmed.
“As with the papacy, faith in the Supreme Court will quickly evaporate if it endorses the widespread abuse of contrived practices not found in scripture.“
Which is why it was so important for Trump to unambiguously land on these clowns with both feet when they pulled their law dismissing crap instead of playing their game and giving them a vote. He’s going to have to anyway because they’re not going to stop.
America’s Constitutional Crisis. The Judicial System Risks a Reformation.
No! The Judicial System, DEMANDS a Reformation.
Congress can and should study this enough to write thorough, well thought out, specific legislation to define what the Article 1 courts can and cannot do. Congress rightfully must step in and solve this. This is their job.
Ok I read it.
I think it’s kind of sloppy. Of course don’t look to the constitution for information action on district courts. The district and circuit courts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1889, and Congress retains the right to regulate their jurisdiction. But statutory reform could not get through the Senate, so SCOTUS is the only hope for now
The long digressions and analogies to the Reformation dilute the central point. Those column inches would have been better spent talking about the real world modern examples of the Supreme Court of Israel essentially seizing control of the state, and the various European courts that have invalidating elections and/or disqualified conservative, and only conservative, candidates. That being said, the article’s passing reference to the Supreme Court of Colorado’s action of disqualifying Trump. That’s the danger of what’s been going on: These judges have been attempting a coup, an overthrow of their constitutional role, the action of the CO was perhaps the most dramatic example, and that is how a proper discussion of this should be framed
Our weaponized “judicial” system needs a good long dempanic style SHUT DOWN. Damn thieving crooks, criminals and hags. You can’t trust “judges”, “lawyers” and dumbass “juries” in this day and age.
It depends on who programs the AI.
Did you mean the Judiciary Act of 1789?
The solution is a court of judicial discipline comprised of judges not on other courts. Judges need to be disciplined for not following rules of procedure, i.e., making up the rules depending on whether or not they like a party, fudging the facts, and failing to follow obvious precedents. Appeals are to correct judicial errors, not misconduct, and misconduct needs to be called out. Judges should have a base salary and get bonuses dependent on how often they are affirmed on appeal like everyone else. Too many judges are just petty tyrants.
I did. Typo. Thanks
“Congress can and should study this enough to write thorough, well thought out, specific legislation to define what the Article 1 courts can and cannot do. Congress rightfully must step in and solve this. This is their job.”
____________________________________________________________
Legislation won’t do it, since the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional under the separation of powers.
The only way to change the delicate relationship between the three branches of government is through a Constitutional amendment.
“We need the Lutherans and Catholics on the Supreme Court”
Umm...it’s a Catholic court, the first in our history.
Gorsuch is a convert to his wife’s religion and Jackson is a...uh...er, something.
Kagan has no religion. Just an ethnicity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.