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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The 9th Circuit will be in the cell on the left.
The DC Circuit will be in the cell on the right.

Why? Are they overturned as much as the 9th?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What can Congress do to overrule a Supreme Court decision that it doesn't approve of?

Quite a bit, actually. Congress could pass a law requiring all SCOTUS judges to retire immediately. They could pass a law removing the subject from their jurisdiction, and pass another law. They could increase the number of justices. Usually, it only requires a discussion of what Congress might do as it passes a law again to chasten the courts. Even the authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional is a power Congress allows the Courts to have and is not an inherent power. However, for all partisan blustering, neither side really wants to mess with the Courts politically, cuz they know its in their best interests not to.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Umm...yeah... Whats the fuss? The people shouldn't have any power to deal with judges who screw up? A judge lets a child molestor walk and then the guy molests your kid and you have no cause for complaint?

Most judges making that type of decision are elected. So vote the bum out, if you disagree. Sure you have some cases overturned on appeal, but those are by a vast majority chalked up to errors by the lower court.

[Berzerker]

Most judges making that type of decision are elected. So vote the bum out, if you disagree. Sure you have some cases overturned on appeal, but those are by a vast majority chalked up to errors by the lower court

How about some actual accountability? If an employee screws up you can fire him, but if his screw up causes you harm and suffering you can sue for damages. If he really screws up he might end up in jail...

[asleepathewheel]

That thought makes me violently ill.

Seriously.

But then again, I have to deal with judges on a daily basis. I also have to appeal their crappy rulings whenever I lose hearings (not on a daily basis). Local judges are prone to blindly believing police officers and the state, after all, who wants to be soft on crime. Making them personally responsible for their rulings, beyond being voted out of office, will turn this into more of a police state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, lets just forget about having an independent judiciary. Just make 'em another political branch which doesn't even have to pretend they are being objective... just that they are pandering to the right party...

(btw, I'm being HIGHLY sarcastic. I think elected judges are an utterly horrible idea. There was a reason the founders of the US republic came up with appointments for life; so that judges could make unpopular decisions that the law demanded without being punished by an uneducated mob)

[Drake Tungsten]

Just make 'em another political branch

They aren't now?

which doesn't even have to pretend they are being objective...

Well, you're right in that they do have to pretend to be objective now...

(btw, I'm being SLIGHTLY sarcastic.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well they aren't now and because the politics (ie, as in playing to interest groups to keep your job) ends after you appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. Then they are free to decide cases in whatever way they feel is correct without having to make some group happy.

Before that stage, however, it is very political, no doubt, as judges are looking to move up the ladder. Though the status of the high bench makes it different than just another political branch.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Berzerker
How about some actual accountability? If an employee screws up you can fire him, but if his screw up causes you harm and suffering you can sue for damages. If he really screws up he might end up in jail...

Exactly. If a judge does something bad you can vote him out when his term expires, or file a charge with the state bar association which could lead to impeachment. But even then a judge is protected from lawsuits arising from all but the most grievous misconduct.

A "citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings" is needed. You should see some of the crap that local magistrates get away with. If they knew they could get their arses sued it might reign them in a bit.

[Berzerker]

Making them personally responsible for their rulings, beyond being voted out of office, will turn this into more of a police state.

Wow, if they're being voted out of office for a major screw up, I imagine that major screw up left victims behind. So we're becoming more of a police state if the victims can sue for damages? Seems to me just the opposite... Police states are not enamored with the notion of letting the little people get back at govt officials.

[notyoueither]

Sonds like some people would be right at home in a Parisian mob.

[Berzerker]

or the 3rd Reich :

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is good to know Berz, that you consider the early years of the US Constitutional Republic to be akin to the 3rd Reich .

[Berzerker]

I was matching absurdity with absurdity

[Imran Siddiqui]

NYE's absurdity had a point though . British & American common law had such protections to protect against mob rule. The American experiment was one of republic, not democracy (as the founders were keen to point out) and distinctions were made to the republican forms of government the US and the UK had and the mob of Paris during the French Revolution.

Protection of the judiciary from suit for their rulings was one of these anti-'mob' measures. The Electoral College was another. The Senate was another, etc.