Taking Back Justice Television
Giving the Innocent a Fighting Chance
Anti-Constitutional Federal Judges
What President Trump Can and Should Do
No legislative body ever gave Judges immunity. They gave it to themselves. Read our Legislation to take away the Immunity from Judges set for introduction in Alabama.
Donald Trump isn’t the first President of the United States to have problems with federal judges. Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Roosevelt had problems with them as well.
The federal judiciary has become increasingly arrogant and irresponsible. Put your grievance before a judge or even panel of judges, especially in a federal criminal case. The judge won’t read what is put in front of them, they will not address the issues raised, and they will certainly not apply the proper legal standards.
Why should they? They have given themselves “judicial immunity”. They are immune to lawsuits for money damages. Worse, they allow law clerks and staff attorneys to ghostwrite most of their opinions for them. Consider:
Richard Arnold of Arkansas, a judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, is a product of the Old South school of courtly manners. He is equally comfortable holding forth on an early 19th-century British case, the U.S. Constitution or a richly embellished anecdote. But he is less genteel when talking about what is happening to the federal courts. Speaking at the Drake University Law School last week, Arnold was asked about a story in The New York Times reporting that because of crushing workloads, some federal appeals courts are resorting to perfunctory one-word rulings—”Affirmed” or “Denied”—with no written opinion giving the court’s reasoning.
The practice is an “abomination,” Arnold said. He told of participating recently in a court session where more than 50 cases were decided in two hours. “We heard many, many cases with no opinions or unpublished opinions,” Arnold said. “I felt dirty. It was a . . . betrayal of the judicial ethos. It makes me feel terrible.”
Perfunctory justice: Overloaded federal judges increasingly are resorting to one-word rulings, Des Moines Register (March 26, 1999).
The aggrieved party read and reread the briefs as well as the transcripts. His mind is fed on nothing else during the three months waiting for the action of the court. He knows every point raised. He can repeat every argument advanced. All his savings through a lifetime are tied up in the case. He knows he is right. Then comes the decision. It deals with none of the points argued. It shows on its face the court refused to read the brief. He had been tossed aside like a white chip. He knows, and his friends know, he has been denied his day in court.
To that man, to his family and to his friends, organized society is organized iniquity.
And the present system is manufacturing citizens of such sentiments by the thousands every year.
Underneath the social unrest of the world today, as its main underlying cause, is the feeling in the breasts of the masses that justice is not for them. They do not know the cause, nor can they suggest the remedy,—and so they only want to destroy. Society to them has come to mean organized injustice.
John Rustgard, Dry Bones—The Remedy for the Evil, 88 Central Law Journal, p. 341, 344 (May 9, 1919).
How does this happen? Someone other than a federal judge actually does the research and writing of “their” (the judges) opinions. Someone who doesn’t have life tenure and serves at the pleasure of the judge he – or she – works for. Someone who doesn’t want to “rock the boat” or disturb the status quo. Someone like a law clerk or staff attorney.
So how does the President bring these misbehaving federal judges under control? It is simple.
The published opinions are full of references to “public confidence in the judiciary.” I.e., once the public loses confidence in federal judges and recognizes them for what they are (welfare recipients in robes) and loses respect for them, the game is over.
How does the President do this?
It’s simplicity itself. All the President has to do is have his pardon attorney pick out one federal criminal case a month in which an American citizen got shafted by a lazy judge who didn’t follow the law. Then pardon him (or her) and explain why the pardon power had to be exercised. I.e., the President had to do the job the judge was too lazy to do.
The judge then becomes an object of public ridicule. As Mark Twain once said, “Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.”
How would you like to be a federal judge who just made the national news for not doing his (or her) job? After the first half dozen or so federal judges are held up to public ridicule, how long do you think it will be before others will “straighten up and fly right” for fear of them being the next target of the Presidents wrath?