Judicial Bad Faith II On Feb. 5, I asked how we…

Judicial Bad Faith II

On Feb. 5, I asked how we can get better, more independent, impartial, apolitical, competent judges.

What we need is a Judicial Appointments Commission.

In theory it wouldn’t even need a Constitutional Amendment, but could be done by Presidential appointment and/or Congressional legislation. But considering the corruption of the Supreme Court, constitutional independence for the Judicial Appointments Commission would probably be ultimately preferable.

Such a Commission could operate by examining the track-records and words of potential Presidential nominees to Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, for political independence, qualification, experience, etc. This work probably should be done confidentially, since reputations may be involved. And the President would only nominate candidates approved by the Commission. Thus, the President might initially send over to the Commission – confidentially – more names than s/he will end up appointing.

The Judicial Appointments Commission would be what’s called a blue-ribbon panel: bi-/non-partisan, comprised of highly respected citizens, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Some state Governors have proved themselves capable of working successfully with blue-ribbon commissions in various fields; why not the President? I would prefer a somewhat large body, maybe as many as 25 members from a variety of backgrounds, for a diversity of experience and opinions to bring to the task.

The ultimate goal here is to introduce into the system a more honorable and apolitical element, one that could be duplicated by all the States also – an at times very political and politicized system that has corrupted the very Constitutional watchdog function of our courts. They suffered the ultimate black-eye in December 2000 when they intervened in a highly partisan way in the Presidential Election, but their corruption has been a constant part of the system since the beginning of the Republic, one that I hope a blue-ribbon Judicial Appointments Commission might remedy.

Advertisements

9/11 WHITEWASH??? So now we have the Bushies an…

9/11 WHITEWASH???

So now we have the Bushies and Speaker Hastert going through the motions of a disagreement over extending, or not, the term of Tom Kean’s 9/11 Commission so they can have until late July to wrap up, rather than late May. The White House gets to look like it’s not hiding anything, while in fact Hastert cuts it short “so it won’t be a political football during the campaign.”

Indeed.

FIRE THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION! Today Rod Paig…

FIRE THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION!

Today Rod Paige, Dubya’s Ed chief, called the National Education Association a terrorist organization, and charged that its leadership doesn’t represent the rank-and-file. (The NEA is a federation of local and state public-school teachers’ unions, usually described as itself the nation’s largest teachers’ union.)

There are two problems with his remarks and also his retraction. The first and obvious one is likening the NEA to Al-Qaeda when the former has never bombed the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. Arguably the Republican Party and the (illegitimate) Bush Administration were more responsible for 9/11 than the NEA, and thus warrant the label more. Furthermore, associating a union with terrorism subconsciously takes hearers back to the bad-old days of strike-related violence – even though, of course, more violence was done in those strikes and lockouts by management and government than by workers.

The second problem with Paige’s remarks is that they interfere in the internal affairs of a labor union. If he were a School District Superintendant, they would earn him an Unfair Labor Practice charge before the National Labor Relations Board. But his reprehensible statements will certainly inspire misconduct by actual Superintendants and other school management. No manager is allowed to involve himself in internal union business. Despite Paige’s attempt to divide leadership from members, the NEA is arguably more democratic than the White House these days, so if teachers don’t like their leadership, they can vote ’em out! The only person who can get rid of Rod, on the other hand, is Dumbass himself!

If we had a Parliament, we could vote no-confidence in the Education Minister. If we had a Monarch, his/her Ed minister might be more service-minded – a minister – rather than playing one of the masters of Plantation America. (I swear I didn’t say that because he’s African-American, either. Check my archives to see my analyses of our current system!)

———————————

Want a union in your workplace?: Visit the AFL-CIO!

P.S. Judges need to be independent of both poli…

P.S.

Judges need to be independent of both politicians and politics. What’s become clear now is that a separate Branch of Government isn’t enough, if they’re still named by politicians, or subject to politics themselves whether by being elected or using the Bench to attempt to influence politics ultra vires. ‘Judge Bad Faith’ will be overturned on appeal (or will he?); but he and those like him shouldn’t be judges in the first place. How can we get judges without them being elected, named by the elected, or themselves (would-be) politicians?

How can we?

JUDICIAL BAD FAITH A state court recently flew …

JUDICIAL BAD FAITH

A state court recently flew in the face of the US Supreme Court by saying, yes you can discriminate against Gay people in criminal statutes. This kind of judicial political bad faith activism is perfectly legal in the Anarchic Republic of the United States of America.

Last summer the Supremes conceded you can’t prosecute Gays for it if you don’t prosecute Straights for it, and threw out Texas’ “sodomy” law. Last week some peon State judge said yes you can. He probably hopes the new case will get a more conservative Supreme Court by the time it gets to that level.

That’s not a judge’s job in the English-speaking world! That’s what appeals are for if one of the parties to a case feels slighted. Judges aren’t supposed to take sides in political issues, just make their rulings according to law.

Then again, maybe he IS following the example of this Supreme Court, though not in the Texas sodomy case, but in Bush v. Gore, when they ruled as they liked without regard for the law or the Constitution, voting Republican on the Bench just as they had a month earlier in their voting booths.

The edifice is crumbling….