Our President has Term Limits Why Not Our Judges. In Federalist No, 78, Alexander Hamilton famously argued that the federal courts were “the least dangerous” branch of government. What he did not understand was that they also proved, over time, to be the worst constructed. And our Family Courts are probably the worst topping the list with Biased Judges who have no idea about precedent and law. Arguably the least educated. The problems here start at the top and work their way down to the bottom. As a recent New York Times column by Duke law professor Paul Carrington points out, the Constitution states that “the judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior,” which, except in cases of corruption or moral turpitude, effectively means for life. If those of us who are free marketers believe that the free market is best guided by the Invisible Hand unhampered or hindered by government regulation, why wouldn’t that also be the best way for the people to select their judges? I don’t mean through national elections, but through personal selection, plaintiff and defendant agreeing on and selecting the judge to hear their case: No central government or state government involvement. Family Court Cases should additionally have the choice to have a Jury of their peers make decisions and not have a Judge with a Judicial agenda or prejudice impact the life and family of a child. As it is now, the justice system in the USA is broken, it is clearly tilted to those who have wealth or who can find the support of the wealthy. Very little of it is about justice, and most of it is about the letter of the law and how that letter is administered. A performance review must be instituted by an independent civilian panel and Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s who can show by preponderance of material evidence that a judge has been biased or engaged in Judicial activism be able to apply for a different Judge to hear their case. If most functions of the government can be privatized and provided by the free market at a huge reduction in cost and a tremendous increase in efficiency, and I believe this to be true, then why shouldn’t the function of justice be provided by the free market? This would make the question of term limits and corruption a moot point as judges would only have their knowledge, skills, and experience to offer the public, and their ability to serve would be based on how well they were perceived to be able to dispense justice. Big mistake. As Carrington notes, longer life spans now translate into terms of thirty or more years. The independence of the judiciary can be easily preserved with either term limits, say, of eighteen years, or a mandatory retirement age . Nearly every modern legal system understands the virtue of limiting judicial terms. How is it possible Judges have fund-raisers in their state attended and funded by local law firms And then must turn around after winning said elections funded by these attorneys and rule against them. It is true the government must perform an essential task. Such is the case with our judicial system in which the federal, state and local government must hire prosecutors and judges to work on behalf of the taxpaying public to fairly and swiftly prosecute and process civil and criminal court proceedings. The sad truth is the government attorneys often face higher-paid, private sector opponents across the courtroom. The result can sometimes appear as if the guilty walk free particularly if they can afford the very best defense team. Thats why we were happy the State of Mississippi attempted to level the field a bit recently with a new law that added pay raises for some judges and prosecutors. Leveling the pay differential may be needed, but we hope one day, however, state lawmakers will consider two more great additions to the judicial system - performance standards and a guarantee of new blood. A more strict system of public performance reviews for judges - not just when theyre found breaking the law and its too late - may help make judges and prosecutors more accountable to the public. Term limits for judges would also go a long way toward fixing a big problem. Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. Why think of the symbiotic chain that cannot be broken . If you are Prose you are give little or no credibility . It doesn’t matter how truthful you are . Judge in local Circuits are Lawyers form the local community that went to Law school or worked with local Lawyers. These Judges are swayed by the loyalty and friendship by people they have known for years. They don’t know you the Prose plaintiff or defendant . Therefore you start of at a disadvantage and will never be given a fair chance. Few attorneys with integrity are willing to run against a strong incumbent judge or prosecutor because if they lose, theyll still have to stand before the winning judge and thats never a good place to be. Though conservatives should get equally exercised about the opposite effect—that is, of a reelected Barack Obama getting to appoint the next two or three justices—the real risk of a lifetime appointment is not partisanship. It is disproportionate power, not only on the Supreme Court, but for any public official. Adding new justices would make the fate of major legislation turn on whether a substitute justice votes in a manner contrary to that of the full-time justice. This change won’t happen without a constitutional amendment, even though one that better solves our problems than Carrington’s proposal is easy enough to draft: “No Supreme Court Justice shall serve for a term of more than eighteen years.” Current law finds a home for these judges under Article I of the Constitution. But Article I is devoted exclusively to legislative power, just as Article II is devoted exclusively to executive power. In our constitutional scheme, all judges are located in Article III of the Constitution which states, “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The initial “the” of Article III makes it clear that all of the judicial power must be given only to courts whose judges receive the protection against dismissal during “good behavior.” Nonetheless, with the expansion of government activity during the progressive era, the political resistance to creating specialized courts with equal dignity to the ordinary district (i.e. trial) and appellate courts led to the establishment of Article I courts. One might expect the hardy band of constitutional originalists (of which I am a sometime member) to recoil against this constitutional oxymoron, which operates as a clear circumvention of the requirements for judges set out in Article III. In Federalist No. 48, James Madison wrote that “in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary.” Accordingly, he concluded: “It is agreed on all sides that the power properly belonging to one of the departments ought not be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments.”
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:54:13 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015