Don't agree with the Judicial Decision, throw the judge in Prison!!

[Thorn]

Way to go Colorado!

O'Connor worries about courts' autonomy Sun

SAN FRANCISCO - Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she fears judges are under growing political attack nationwide.

"I'm increasingly concerned about the current climate of challenge to judicial independence," O'Connor told a gathering of state judges from around the country Friday. "Unhappiness with judges today is at a very intense level."

The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, she said, and therefore the one with "the greatest need to be defended."

The executive and legislative branches have become the attackers, so "the principal defenders are going to have to be the people of this country," with lawyers taking the lead, she said.

O'Connor, who retired in January after 24 years on the nation's highest court, spoke just days before South Dakota voters consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.

Colorado voters will decide whether to limit judges on the state's highest courts to 10 years in office, a measure that would remove five of the state's seven Supreme Court justices within two years.

[SlowwHand]

The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government,

It isn't supposed to be, and I challenge this statement.
Checks and balances.

[Imran Siddiqui]

just days before South Dakota voters consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.

WTF?!

Hell, why have a judiciary in this case.

[Colon™]

*hopes someone drops by to argue this is actually a pretty good idea*

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

just days before South Dakota voters consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.

WTF?!

Hell, why have a judiciary in this case.

That can't be constitutional, can it?

[KrazyHorse]

Doesn't sound like it.

Given that judges will eventually decide its constitutionality, what the constitution has to do with things is sort of questionable, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That can't be constitutional, can it?

Nope... especially not for federal judges. For state judges, the courts can invoke that the Constitution says each state has to guarantee a republican form of government and they may claim that an independent judiciary is necessary for that.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I would definatly agree with the statement the the Judicial is the weakest branch, for one that WAS the intent when the constitution was writen (the whole co-equal triumvate idea came later). The legislature can legaly pass laws that determin practicaly every aspect of how the Judicial System is run. The executive can pardon individuals of any crime. These are very big checks, the judicial checks of striking down unconstitutional legislation is quite narrow and used very infrequently, they also must have a case brought to them before any such ruling can be made. Thus any court desision is an inherently passive, some outside group (ACLU) must act first before the court can act, no other branch has such restrictions, they are "first movers" in a sense. The judicial function of prosicuting individuals for crimes is'nt an effective check on excesses of the other branches, public opinion will determin what party remains in power which is far more important then any individual legislator or executive. Basicaly the Legislative branch can change the rules and take the rug out from under the Judicial if it so desires. And now for the funny part.

Legislative + Executive Branch: Send the Prisoners to Guantanimo

Judicial Branch: But we had a deal!

Legislative + Executive: I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further

[TCO]

As long as they do the right thing, they have nothing to fear.

[chequita guevara]

The Legislative was supposed to be the most powerful branch, which is why there are two legislatures, so they check each other.

[Impaler[WrG]]

No the bi-camaral legislature is a compromise to protect small states from the potential "tyrany of the majority" from large states like Virgina which would otherwise control a strictly population based legislature.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But he is right that the legislature was supposed to be the most powerful branch.

[Drake Tungsten]

The judiciary today is far more powerful than it was ever intended to be, which is the root cause of the increasingly bitter and partisan showdowns over judical nominations. The stakes are too high these days to play nice when it comes to appointing judges (particularly Supreme Court justices)...

[Nubclear]

just days before South Dakota voters consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.

[Dinner]

You laugh but this is what the far right has degenerated into.