Angeles, California November 2, 2006
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter
Government. The Right
Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E is
Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association and
Would it be the South Dakota Legislature?
Would it be the insurance companies
and agencies? NO!
IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH
WHO WOULD BE HURT.
Vote YES on Amendment E for your
future and your own good!
for Judicial Independence
New York Times
Nearly obscured by the struggle for control of Congress,
there is another important battle in a handful of states over measures aimed at
punishing judges for their official rulings and making them more captive to
prevailing political winds. These measures all hide behind the superficially
appealing but profoundly misleading banner of judicial accountability. And,
taken together, they add up to an assault on a fair and independent
In Colorado, voters will decide the fate of a
far-reaching state constitutional amendment designed to kick a huge percentage
of top sitting judges off the bench by setting a term limit of 10 years and
applying the cap retroactively. A measure on the ballot in Oregon would create
new geographic districts from which appellate judges could run, as a backdoor
way to oust judges from the Portland area.
In Montana, conservative groups tried to force voters to
confront Constitutional Initiative 98, an attempt to “rein in” judges by
establishing new recall elections and making it easier to remove judges for
specific rulings. Fortunately, the state’s high court ruled this misbegotten
initiative invalid because of what it called “pervasive fraud” by out-of-state
paid gatherers of signatures.
But the wackiest and potentially most far-reaching of the
judge-bashing schemes is still on the ballot, South Dakota’s Jail 4 Judges
initiative. The brainchild of Ronald Branson, an antigovernment activist from
California operating at the political fringe, this reckless exercise seeks to
keep judges in line by amending the state Constitution to eliminate judicial
immunity from lawsuits by disgruntled plaintiffs and others. Immunity is a
time-honored way of preserving an independent judiciary.
This radical measure would create a special grand jury
with a rotating membership and loose rules — in effect, a fourth branch of
government. This new entity would be vested with the power to punish judges for
their decisions, or, for that matter, school board members or any other local
public official who had the bad luck to fit under the amendment’s broad
definition of judicial power. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, the former
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor correctly blasted the initiative as a
bald attempt at judicial intimidation.
By rejecting Jail 4 Judges, South Dakota voters can send
a message of support for a strong and independent judicial system — without
which democracy cannot function — that will resound
above arguments as true, one would necessarily have to believe that all
justice must be sacrificed upon the altar of "Independence." Obviously, by
whatever name one might wish to call it, if it gets in the way of justice, then
is does despite to the very purpose of it's very existence -- "justice."
Certainly, if arriving at the truth is not the objective of the judiciary, then
why have a judiciary at all? Might makes right, and thus, may the strongest
I am not against
true "judicial independence." We need an independent judiciary that rises
above politics and human emotions. But if "judicial independence" means
independent of the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold, then mark me
down as opposed judicial independence.
"independent" judiciary that makes up and enforces its own laws as it goes, is
certain to bring the entire judiciary into contempt and disrepute, causing
the judiciary to have to publicly defend themselves at every stage
while descending into their own quagmire and
The truth is that
JAIL4Judges is the best thing that could ever happen to the judiciary to protect
it from its own demise. Only God Himself is immune from having to answer to any
Like a broken
record, I hear the same old line, namely that under J.A.I.L. disgruntled
litigants will be able to go after judges, and that "judges" include "jurors,
school board members," etc., etc., etc.
Despite that I
have pulled apart all of these hog-wash arguments on our website, www.sd-jail4judges.org,
they ignore our irrefutable arguments, and continue to repeat the same old
arguments. (See "Confronting, Head-On, The No-On-E Club.") This is intellectual
dishonesty. The feel that as long as they have money and a tongue or means to
disseminate their lies, they will do so, not considering that they too will
one day have to give an account. Be not deceived, God is not
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA
powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
"..it does not
require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to
set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a
thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.23/513 - Release Date: 11/2/2006 7:40 AM