A Case Against the Judiciary System of The United States of America

[franzwohlgemuth]

Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2021, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

If a judge does not follow the law and makes rulings and decides cases according to that judge's own personal, political or religious views, then that judge is not fair and impartial. If a judge is not fair and impartial, then all parties involved are denied their fundamental constitutional right to due process. It breaks down public confidence in the rule of law, which leads to more disorder. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should be faithful to the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, theocratic ideals, public clamor, or fear of criticism. With a judge being neutral and impartial, that would mean they have no Political, Party, or Theocratic leaning. Yet we have a SCOTUS and lower courts that are largely comprised of Judges that have those said leanings.

Per “Code of Conductor for United States Judges:
(C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
The role of the United States Supreme Court is to have complete authority over nearly all cases decided in the federal court system. The Supreme Court also hears appeals from state high appellate courts that involve a national question, such as turning over federal statutes or issues under the Constitution of the United States Their pivot point in the required neutrality is the Constitution, with further context provided by the Federalist Papers as well as the founder’s letters and speeches (showing their intent). . To inject their own opinion, political, or religious beliefs, proves them to be no longer neutral and impartial. Which in turn means they are unfit for the bench and should be removed immediately.

Other flaws in the American system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; because their lack of ability to immediately impose said check on the other branches. Since they must wait, sometimes for years, for a case to come to them (and IF they decide to take said case to even begin with), their ability to restrain other branches is severely weakened. Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into the political arena. Deciding elections, making way for oblivious partisan views or actions…

SCOTUS is a dysfunctional body. I say that with no regard to the correctness of its past decisions (statistically, it will make proper decisions from time to time). It simply cannot ensure consistency of interpretation of the law across the country or that the law is justly applied because of its tendency to political bias within the chamber.

The courts have too much power to radically remake our nation with no check to stop them.With the latest Trump appointment to the Supreme Court, the 6-3 far-right majority on the Supreme Court would have the power and opportunity to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (in the middle of a deadly pandemic), Roe V. Wade, Gay Marriage, further gut voting rights, and rollback anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ and Black and brown Americans and people of several religions, while continuing to give police departments and immigration officials lack of accountability for systemic violence and racism against people of color. This concentration of power without sufficient accountability is a threat to democracy – and to the ability of our communities to thrive.
They have been weaponized to wield political power and shield extreme conservative coalitions from accountability. Conservative jurists and their aligned partisans in the states and the Congress have radically shifted the terms of political power in the country to corporations and away from working class communities. Black and brown communities in particular.
They have attacked organized labor through “right-to-work” laws and union-busting rulings based on a corporate-friendly reading of the first amendment. They have destroyed the promise of free and fair elections by gutting the Voting Rights Act from the bench, giving way for rampant state-based policies that suppress the votes of Black and brown Americans. They have allowed extreme gerrymandering by ruling that federal courts are powerless to stop politicians from rigging the next election, and opened everything to dark money controlling our politics.

The strategy is, rig elections to win legislative power in states and in the Senate. Use that leverage to pack the courts with partisans; and then use those packed courts to further rig the electoral process and to block rival legislation, all in an attempt to gain and keep power. These moves amount to election fraud and usurpation of the people.
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton said the judiciary is “the least dangerous” branch, because it held neither the purse strings of the Legislature nor the force of the Executive; the judiciary wielded “merely judgment,”. So it had to be protected from outside influence by providing safeguards to its independence. Importantly, Hamilton also said in Federalist No. 78 – presaging Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, it was the duty of the courts “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” The judiciary was to protect the guarantees set out in the Constitution by having the power to say no to the Legislature and the Executive when they overstepped their constitutional powers. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed: “The Constitution tries to insulate judges from the public pressures that may affect elected officials. The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law.”

“Judges must follow the law, the Constitution and precedent, not our own political or philosophical predilections. We are expected to approach each case with an open mind and render unbiased judgments; we must be impartial and non-partisan. Judicial independence consists of the “intellectual honesty and dedication to [the] enforcement of the rule of law regardless of popular sentiment,” and the ability “to render a decision in the absence of political pressures and personal interests.” Chief Justice Rehnquist called judicial independence “one of the crown jewels of our system of government today.”
Today, we have, not just a SCOTUS, but a full judicial system that is bent on partisan judgments, and injects its own personal views into every case. The justice system is neither neutral nor impartial. It is invalid.

Per Reuters (Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench, By MICHAEL BERENS and JOHN SHIFFMAN in MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, Filed June 30, 2020, noon GMT), “In the first comprehensive accounting of judicial misconduct nationally, Reuters identified and reviewed 1,509 cases from the last dozen years – 2008 through 2019 – in which judges resigned, retired or were publicly disciplined following accusations of misconduct. In addition, reporters identified another 3,613 cases from 2008 through 2018 in which states disciplined wayward judges but kept hidden from the public key details of their offenses – including the identities of the judges themselves.

All told, 9 of every 10 judges were allowed to return to the bench after they were sanctioned for misconduct, Reuters determined. They included a California judge who had sex in his courthouse chambers, once with his former law intern and separately with an attorney; a New York judge who berated domestic violence victims; and a Maryland judge who, after his arrest for driving drunk, was allowed to return to the bench provided he took a Breathalyzer test before each appearance.
The news agency’s findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who writes about judicial ethics. Although punishment short of removal from the bench is appropriate for most misconduct cases, Gillers said, the public “would be appalled at some of the lenient treatment judges get” for substantial transgressions.”

Our judiciary is out of control. We have judges that violate their oath. We have a Senate that pushes through judges solely because of politics and not actual law. Many, many judges are completely unfit for the bench, from the top down. All judges that have been guilty of misconduct, partisan, party, or theocratic behavior must be removed from office and all past judgements scrutinized (and reversed if needs be). If we don’t have a viable and ethical legal system that actually upholds the law, we have no legitimate rule of law, we have nothing to secure our society.

https://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Case-Against-the-Judicia-by-Franz-Wohlgemuth-American-Civil-Liberties-Union_Judges_Judiciary_Judiciary-Corruption-Crime-210220-236.html

[FreepFryer]

1. If I were grading this, it would fail for plagiarizing Rahman. To say nothing of naive Pollyanna. nt

Rahman’s guardian piece, from which whole sentences here are cribbed:
is https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/24/supreme-court-threat-to-democracy-rbg-how-we-fix-it

[franzwohlgemuth]

2. LOL

Seeing as that's the first time I've seen that article, it's not plagiarizing.
Seriously, I even opened my history, and today is the first instance it shows, simply because I clicked on the link you posted.
Nice try though.
If sentences happen to be the same it doesn't make it plagiarizing.

[FreepFryer]

3. It's not one sentence, more sentences are lifted entirely - From more than one source. F

That denial - claiming astronomical coincidence - is the commonest denial of a plagiarist.

[franzwohlgemuth]

4. Like I stated

I had never seen that article before.
More than journalists can put together cohesive sentences. So stop. (Added to Ignore...)

[Karadeniz]

5. I wish I could think of ways to improve SCOTUS. It is unfortunate that they're nominated and

Confirmed by politicians.

[franzwohlgemuth]

6. We need

all three branches fixed. I have two other articles (A Case Against the Congress and A Case Against the Executive Branch). Can't fix just one. All of them need it for them to be fixed.

[Karadeniz]

7. Absolutely!!!!