Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

* * * Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace * * *

Expand Messages
  • JAIL4Judges
    Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace Our nation s judiciary is crying out for a truce from the judicial warfare. It is obvious that judges are feeling the heat
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 15, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace
       
       
      Our nation's judiciary is crying out for a truce from the judicial warfare. It is obvious that judges are feeling the heat of their own strivings which they have generated by their manifestation of contempt for the Constitution and for the laws of our nation.
       
      Whether recognized or not, the heart of the matter is their self-legislated doctrine of judicial immunity which shall surely destroy them so long as they cling thereto. But never in a thousand years will they willingly relinquish that absolute power to do wrong and not be accountable therefor.
       
      J.A.I.L. is the only provision that will bring about a reasonable solution to the problem. Contrary to stated opinion, J.A.I.L. does not eliminate judicial immunity. Rather, it subjects immunity to a citizens' panel of Special Grand Jurors charged with determining whether or not immunity shall apply.
       
      Judicial immunity, once in place, can never be subject to its own determination as to whether it should apply. Immunity is like one who says, "Give me one wish, and I shall control the world indefinitely, for my one wish shall be to have unlimited wishes for anything I want!"
       
      In reading the following article, one must realize that the voice of the Bar Associations is to protect and defend the judges in whatever they want, often cited as "Protecting the Independence of the Judiciary. (IOJ)" This doctrine is hard-pressed by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. What she really means by this term as translated by her usage is "Touch not my judiciary, and do my judges no harm," i.e., a god-like mentality.
       
      This is why her main target is JAIL4Judges. She has time and time again mentioned JAIL4Judges by name in her dissertations of defending the independence of the judiciary. Every time you hear her mention IOJ, you just know she has that blasted organization of J.A.I.L. in the back of her mind, and she often says so! J.A.I.L. has even been given the opportunity to refute her on nationwide TV (CNN) regarding her attacks upon J.A.I.L.
       
      So, what we are witnessing on the media scene in reality is the waving of a white flag with a cry, "Cease fire, cease fire, cease fire," ... but the warfare on the judiciary is not about to end. If anything, the warfare on the judiciary is just now warming up.
       
      - Ron Branson

      Reduce partisan fight over judges, lawyers urge

      NEW YORK (AP) — The American Bar Association is calling on the next president and Senate to reduce partisan tensions in federal judicial nominations.

      The incoming president of the lawyers' group, H. Thomas Wells Jr. of Birmingham, Ala., said Sunday that he also is enlisting the help of retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to study threats to fair and impartial state courts.

      At the federal level, the White House should create a commission of Democrats and Republicans to recommend nominees for federal appeals courts and the two senators from each state should establish similar panels to evaluate and recommend federal trial judges, the ABA says in a resolution inspired by Wells. The proposal is certain to be adopted at the group's annual meeting in New York.

      The bipartisan panels would help "avoid the times when there have been really rancorous debates in the confirmation process," Wells said in an interview with The Associated Press.

      Nominations from Florida and other states that now use such commissions, Wells said, "almost never have bitter confirmation fights."

      Wells said that by acting ahead of this year's election, the ABA — often criticized by Republicans for tilting toward the Democrats — will avoid being seen as favoring one party. He said he plans to write to Democrat Barack Obama, Republican John McCain and members of the Senate to urge them to adopt the commission approach.

      In recent years, individual senators in both parties have blocked judicial nominees from a vote by the full Senate. Democrats filibustered several of President Bush's nominees when they controlled the Senate during his first term.

      Bush also has failed to consult senators on some of his choices. In one instance, his nominee for an appeals court slot from Virginia was not among the recommendations of the state's senators, Republican John Warner and Democrat Jim Webb.

      The nomination has since been withdrawn and Bush has nominated two other Virginians to fill vacancies on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who were among those recommended by the senators. One, former state Supreme Court Justice G. Steven Agee, was unanimously confirmed. The nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Glen Conrad is pending.

      At the state level, Wells said his concern was sparked by recent expensive, and in some cases ugly, campaigns and some state legislatures' refusal to provide enough money for state courts.

      O'Connor has spoken out frequently in defense of judicial independence and said judges who must run in partisan elections risk being compromised by the growing amount of campaign cash they must raise.

      She will head up a May 2009 summit in Charlotte, N.C., that will explore these issues, Wells said.

      In April, a little-known county judge narrowly defeated a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice with a law-and-order message and a barrage of third-party ads in a race that will go down as one of the state's nastiest.

      Liberal and conservative interest groups spent millions of dollars on negative attack ads that blanketed the state's airwaves for weeks.

      The ABA also is part of a push to get the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case from West Virginia, in which a state high court justice refused to step aside from ruling on a $76.3 million dispute involving a key booster of his 2004 election campaign.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.