Federal Judicial Reform

[jaF0]

District Level:

District court could only hear cases in which at least one litigant has had a physical presence for at least 5 consecutive years immediately prior to filing.
District Court rulings could not extend beyond the District.

Substantial changes to the behavior of District Court judges. (Too detailed to get into here, but based on my time working with the court and the inappropriate spending demands the Judges I worked with made.)

Eliminate or at least redefine the 'Senior Judge' status. You want to retire, you retire and give up your courtroom, chambers and staff. Retired judges could take limited cases at the discretion of the Chief Judge, but would share a courtroom, chambers and staff with other retired Judges. This was a HUGE issue as Seniors had full status and did virtually nothing while taking up massive resources.

Massive ethics and behavioral reform. Judges think far too highly of themselves and need to be reined in. I'd also suggest periodic review of rulings with the possible chance of disciplinary action.



Circuit Level:


Same points as above.

Consider increasing the number of Circuits to 25 so no circuit would oversee more than two states. Might take the bite out of certain ones.

 

[HisArpy]

Lol.

Totally unrealistic and nakedly unconstitutional too.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lol.

Totally unrealistic and nakedly unconstitutional too.

You've got to remember (insofar as your smoothbrain is capable of doing) that just because someone disagrees with you, it's not automatically "unconstitutional".

 

[HisArpy]

You've got to remember (insofar as your smoothbrain is capable of doing) that just because someone disagrees with you, it's not automatically "unconstitutional".

There you go again, "thinking" you know something...

There are THREE autonomous branches of the US Government. The legislative, the administrative, and the judicial.

None of the three can countermand the Constitution. the closest we get is if Congress amends the Constitution and the amendment is ratified by 3/4's of the States.

First off, good luck with that.

Secondly, please note that the Constitution sets out the terms for Federal judges and justices. If Congress in some act of ultimate stupidity were to attempt to limit the terms of the judiciary without amending and ratifying the Constitution FIRST, the JUDICIARY would be the branch of the government to hear the matter. Can you guess what the outcome would be? And why?

Then we have the limits on who can bring suit. Yeah, that works. Limit who can bring a lawsuit so that those with disputes can't settle it in court and instead have to opt to settle it in the streets themselves. I'm CERTAIN that the government is going to be behind that.

And of course, limiting who can sue in Federal Court kind of runs afoul of the 14th amendment for due process and equal protection under the law. Which makes the idea unconstitutional too.



So, why don't you go back to NOT "thinking?" That way the world won't be troubled by your earthshaking epiphanies of ignorance.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Yeah.

Everybody always has a better way.

Next time, try advice on how to work the system.



Democrats seem to be excellent at this use of judicial "review..."

 

[SimonDoom]

The Supreme Court definitely should be required to abide by an ethical code. Other judges have to. It makes no sense that they are immune.

As for the other changes, I'm not so sure. I don't know how much positive effect they would have.

Ideally, I think Supreme Court justices should be limited to terms of 18 years, but that would require a Constitutional amendment.

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah.

Everybody always has a better way.

Next time, try advice on how to work the system.



Democrats seem to be excellent at this use of judicial "review..."

The problem here isn't that the D's don't know how to work the system, it's that they're trying to FORCE their social change upon the world which in general is opposing that change through rational order and reason.

No one gets screwed with an unbiased and neutral justice system. Trying to tilt the scale so that one team wins and gets their agenda established as the law of the land, isn't "justice" it's the antithesis of justice.

The Left even knows this but their hatred of self and others is so strong they don't care and refuse to accept that the potential consequences of their actions will come full circle. Because Karma is known to be a bitch for a good reason.

 

[HisArpy]

The Supreme Court definitely should be required to abide by an ethical code. Other judges have to. It makes no sense that they are immune.

As for the other changes, I'm not so sure. I don't know how much positive effect they would have.

Ideally, I think Supreme Court justices should be limited to terms of 18 years, but that would require a Constitutional amendment.

Why? Because you've been told half truths about what goes on at the Supreme Court?

That's not a good reason. Especially if you understand that the SCOTUS does in fact have an ethical code the justices follow. It's not well known, but it already exists. So you've been lied to by your Lefty masters and the media about that. Where's your outrage over it? How come you're not pointing fingers at the ones responsible instead of those who aren't?

Remember too that the Constitution says that Federal judges have tenure only during times of good behavior. If a Federal judge is corrupt ethically, then it is up to Congress to remove them for said corruption through the existing impeachment and removal process. If Congress can't, or refuses to, then the only thing you can conclude is that the corruption which you're claiming exists, doesn't actually exist and is merely a political talking point lacking substance.

These are things which smart people who aren't mired in forcing others to adhere to one sided social change think about.

 

[RobDownSouth]

1. If Anthony Welters can gift "Justice" Clarence Thomas with a $267,000 recreational vehicle...
2. If Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow can gift Thomas and his wife 20 YEARS of worldwide travel on his private jet, cruises on his super yacht...
3. Crow also paid Thomas' grand-nephew $6000 per month ($150,000 total) tuition for four years of boarding school (Thomas indicated he raised his gran-nephew "like a son" beginning at age six) without declaring the charitable contribution on his income taxes...
4. If the wife of "Chief Justice" John Roberts can grift tens of millions of dollars with her sketchy "lawyer placement services" for companies with business before the Supreme Court.
5. If "Justice" Brett Kavanaugh can have his credit card debt of somewhere between $60,000 and $200,000 magically disappear right before his confirmation to the Supreme Court and not have to document how it was paid off (He says he had to pay a $92,000 country club initiation fee and also bought a block of Washington Nationals baseball season tickets for himself and his beer-drinking friends)
6. If "Justice" Neil Gorsuch can purchase a 33% interest in Colorado mountain lodge resort with two key lieutenants of billionaire Phillip Anschultz (who has a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court and Gorsuch refuses to recuse himself)

...then the "Supreme Court ethics rules" obviously have no penalties or consequences attached to them. As "Justice" Thomas famously said earlier this year "the late Justice Scalia told us we din't have to report these thangs". (paraphrase)

The only Justice who to have actually reported an outside windfall was Justice Sandra Sotomayor, who reported winning an $8,200 jackpot at a Miami casino immediately upon her return from a Florida vacation.

 

[HisArpy]

1. If Anthony Welters can gift "Justice" Clarence Thomas with a $267,000 recreational vehicle...
2. If Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow can gift Thomas and his wife 20 YEARS of worldwide travel on his private jet, cruises on his super yacht...
3. Crow also paid Thomas' grand-nephew $6000 per month ($150,000 total) tuition for four years of boarding school (Thomas indicated he raised his gran-nephew "like a son" beginning at age six) without declaring the charitable contribution on his income taxes...
4. If the wife of "Chief Justice" John Roberts can grift tens of millions of dollars with her sketchy "lawyer placement services" for companies with business before the Supreme Court.
5. If "Justice" Brett Kavanaugh can have his credit card debt of somewhere between $60,000 and $200,000 magically disappear right before his confirmation to the Supreme Court and not have to document how it was paid off (He says he had to pay a $92,000 country club initiation fee and also bought a block of Washington Nationals baseball season tickets for himself and his beer-drinking friends)
6. If "Justice" Neil Gorsuch can purchase a 33% interest in Colorado mountain lodge resort with two key lieutenants of billionaire Phillip Anschultz (who has a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court and Gorsuch refuses to recuse himself)

...then the "Supreme Court ethics rules" obviously have no penalties or consequences attached to them. As "Justice" Thomas famously said earlier this year "the late Justice Scalia told us we din't have to report these thangs". (paraphrase)

The only Justice who to have actually reported an outside windfall was Justice Sandra Sotomayor, who reported winning an $8,200 jackpot at a Miami casino immediately upon her return from a Florida vacation.

^someone hasn't read the SCOTUS ethics rules...

Here's the bit you and the rest of the rabid anti-Clarence Thomas crowd don't understand. Ethics isn't about recusing yourself merely because you have a passing connection to one of the litigants. If that were the case, NO JUDGE could hear a case involving a merchant or bank, or manufacturer. Why? Because we all purchase goods or use services provided by those entities.

And unless gifts are connected to, or intended to be connected to future litigation, the gifts don't violate ethical rules. Nor does reporting them create any sort of ethical dilemma. For instance, local judges have to report gifts valued over $15 in most jurisdictions. If a judge gets a pair of $20 tickets to a golf tournament and reports it, does that create a conflict? If he accepts such a gift on a yearly basis from the same benefactor, does that mean he's unethical?

Should he be disciplined? For the equivalent of $40?

Does the value of the gift really have anything to do with any ethical violation?

Of course some will say yes, but the real issue is whether the gift is an attempt by a litigant to buy favor. If the gift is a true gift from someone not a litigant, even if there is a passing connection, then it's a GIFT and not a bribe regardless of the value of the gift. Under those conditions and SCOTUS ethics rules, it's not required to be reported.

That YOU don't like it, because you're one of the Clarence Thomas haters, doesn't change that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Look who is standin' tall for the current toothless Supreme Court ethics rules!
Anyone surprised?
Me neither.

 

[HisArpy]

Look who is standin' tall for the current toothless Supreme Court ethics rules!
Anyone surprised?
Me neither.

I stand for the law. The current SCOTUS ethics rules are the law.

That you don't like it, just shows that you aren't really interested in anything except sowing division and hate.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You stand only for your own questionable and often erroneous interpretation of the law.
That's not "standing for the law" in the minds of most people.

 

[HisArpy]

You stand only for your own questionable and often erroneous interpretation of the law.
That's not "standing for the law" in the minds of most people.

I stand for the law.

That means you won't find me advocating for anything which violates the law. You won't find me advocating for violence. You won't find me supporting racism or bigotry or inequality FROM ANYONE.

You also won't find me trying to tilt the scale of justice in anyone's favor in order to force a political narrative on the unwilling. Or use it as a bludgeon to cow opposition into submission.

That you don't like my stance on this, isn't relevant. I don't answer to you and never will.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Article III, Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The federal government has failed to review and enforce “good behaviour” of justices that is stipulated in the Constitution.

The phrase “during good behaviour” clearly means the terms of justices should end if a review decides their behaviour has not been good.

 

[HisArpy]

The federal government has failed to review and enforce “good behaviour” of justices that is stipulated in the Constitution.

The phrase “during good behaviour” clearly means the terms of justices should end if a review decides their behaviour has not been good.

Failed to enforce? Or hasn't found any actionable violations?

 

[MajorRewrite]

Failed to enforce? Or hasn't found any actionable violations?

Hasn’t reviewed behavior at all. Failure.

 

[HisArpy]

Hasn’t reviewed behavior at all. Failure.

Not true.

Justice Samuel Chase was tried but not removed in 1804.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm

So, Congress currently watches but hasn't acted. By the fact that Congress HAS acted in the past but does not do so now can only indicate that there is no impeachable offense being committed by any Supreme Court justice.

Your personal opinion isn't fact. Nor is it actionable. Nor does Congress care about it.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Not true.

Justice Samuel Chase was tried but not removed in 1804.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm

So, Congress currently watches but hasn't acted. By the fact that Congress HAS acted in the past but does not do so now can only indicate that there is no impeachable offense being committed by any Supreme Court justice.

Your personal opinion isn't fact. Nor is it actionable. Nor does Congress care about it.

1804

 

[HisArpy]

1804

Your point? Other than you believe it was too long ago and that there must have been something nefarious being done somewhere since then.

Which is true...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/16/politics/senate-aide-sex-tape-hearing-room/index.html


It's just not being done by the justices and judges.

 

[beckiefalwell]

Donald Trump polls well with "low information voters."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-south/among-americas-low-information-voters

https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=910305097636681&id=100059715961024&_rdr

https://twitter.com/x/status/1827519033966489854

Well no surprise there.