Offering common sense solutions for judicial discipline.
How to file a complaint of judicial misconduct
The Real Solution
As George Washington noted, the real solution is found in the Bible. "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
So, to quote God,
...select capable men from all the people men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Exodus 18:21
They were appointed judges with this warning:
Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for man but for the LORD, who is with you whenever you give a verdict. Now let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.2 Chronicles 19:6
But what about Article Six? In a fit of obfuscation protecting a Mormon judge who (wrongly) sat on two cases involving his church, the 10th Circuit recently pointed out that our Constitution prohibits any type of strict spiritual test. (Use your browser's FIND function or scroll to the end of this report to read the denial of the Writ of Mandamus.)
Article VI, clause 3, provides that all governmental officers be bound by an oath to support the Constitution, and that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
That's not a Separation of God and State
True, the government is not allowed a religious test for office. That is not to say that We, the People can't steer Godly men into judgeships. Nor does the lack of religious test imply that a religious or spiritual man cannot be appointed to office.
The irony in the above citation is that the 10th correctly affirmed the judge could be a Mormon, but incorrectly overlooked the laws about a Mormon judge sitting on a case involving his church. The Writ has been sealed - we think as a "courtesy" to the Mormon judge (the lawyers work in Salt Lake City. Wouldn't want to burn any bridges, would we? - so we can't know what information the lawyers presented. But it's well known and documented that Mormons swear an oath of allegiance to their church during their temple ceremony, which can sometimes put them in conflict with the oath they swore to uphold our laws. (In this case, the judge ruled in favor of his church in both law suits and was overturned both times.)
Still, we can make due with the system of checks & balances the Founding Fathers gave us. Actually, as long as most of us are Godly, the system can work fairly well. To that end, there are some things we can do to hold judges in check.
Some ideas
Start Impeaching
Like most political problems in the US, this is the solution the Founders gave us. It needs to be used. Dictating "Personal Policy Preferences" from the bench is not "good behavior." There's been some talk of this recently, and as time allows, we will cover this more.
It sounds hackneyed, but chose an honorable (Godly) President.
As we're currently seeing (2005/2006) and have seen in the past (President Clinton's nominees), one underrated, but VERY important function of the President is to nominate judges. While the Judiciary shouldn't have the power it has, the fact is, it has it. (One wonders why we don't simply shrug them off, as the States used to do, when they make patently unconstitutional political rulings, but that discussion is for another day.) The culture within the Judiciary needs to be changed. This makes it even more important for an honorable President to nominate honorable men who will not usurp their authority and will obey the Supreme Law of the land (the Constitution) and lesser laws as they are written.
Term Limits. A definite MUST.
While the Founding Fathers did an excellent job crafting our Constitution, they erred when they granted life tenure to Federal Judges. The Founders failed to foresee two problems fostered by life tenure - the problem of politics (lately in the form of Judicial Activism) and the problem of senility. This Amendment addresses both these problems.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment >>Juries for Judges.
Really, the idea of judges judging themselves is stupid. When it comes to issues of judicial misconduct, the only way to ensure the public doesn't see impropriety is to let the public - i.e. a panel of ordinary citizens with good noses - decide if something stinks. The power Congress gave to judges to discipline other judges should be redirected by Congress and vested in this panel of citizens, with no chance for review.
Jail for Judges
We'd propose jail for judges, but it's not clear to us how the mechanics would work. [Especially in light of the May 2006 hoopla Congress recently made over the FBI, an arm of the Executive Branch of government, raiding the Legislative Branch of government. (Democrat Congressman William Jefferson Clinton and his $90,000 cash in freezer.)]
The problem is, an Article III judge cannot be removed from office except by Congress. (Although that's been breached now by the Judicial Conduct Act, where the judiciary can effectively "remove" a judge from office.) Now, suppose a judge murders someone. Can he be arrested? Can we put a judge in jail, essentially removing him from office, without impeaching him first? Interestingly, we caught a local radio show hosted by one of our heroes, attorney Marc Victor, interviewing Arizona Judge John Buttrick. Judge Buttrick, who sounds VERY knowledgeable, postulated the same question and knows of no answer or precedent. Short of a heinous felony, we're not sure a judge can be jailed for, say, lying about certain interests at trial, for fixing a case for a friend, or even taking a bribe.
Having said that, there is an interesting initiative picking up steam to hold judges accountable. It's being misrepresented by the media. (What's new?) See Jail For Judges for the real story.