Iowa GOP's War on Courts Could Result in Partisan Judges
Re: The Iowa Independent article;
Iowa GOP's war on courts
could result in partisan judges
By Patrick Caldwell 9/1/10
Ron Branson posts:
The issue of judicial accountability verses independence has been the subject of much controversy down through the decades. This controversy goes back even to the days of our Founding Fathers in seeking to hold judges accountable, yet not interfering with their discretionary powers. To date, all we have is impeachment by the legislatures. But as Thomas Jefferson proliferately argued, he likened impeachment to that of a scarecrow in a cornfield, and indeed down through the history of our nation, only seven judges have been impeached from the bench, hardly an impact to judicial corruption.
There is an answer to the problem that appropriately protects both judicial independence and judicial accountability which is set forth on www.jail4judges.org (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - J.A.I.L.). The citizen's of the State of Iowa are now facing the very same concerns faced, but successfully unresolved, by our Founding Fathers. Out of this same consternation has arisen the nationwide debate over whether to elect or appoint our judges. In either case, we fact either special interest influence or unaccountability, neither option of which can be tolerated.
The answer is likened unto a bathtub. In a bathtub we have two basic functions; the faucet, and the drain. Allow the appointment or elections of judges to the bench go unrestrained. This is the government "spicket.' Alternatively, allow the People total and complete control over the drain. The issue then is not over how or who gets to be judge, for the People will have control over the drain, draining out those who willfully violate their Oaths of Office, the Constitution, or the laws made in pursuant thereof.
As an example, our Constitution in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 sets forth, "The trail of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." This Constitutional provision is easily understood. If it is not an impeachment matter, a jury trial is mandated. In 1960 the California legislature "invented" a new class of crimes that did not fit the only two Constitutional classifications of crimes of high crimes and misdemeanors which they classed as "Infractions." In "Infractions" People charged thereunder were no longer entitled to counsel, or to a trial by a jury. Therefore, a person charged with not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle were no longer "entitled" to a jury trial. But can anyone explain how the helmet law fits into the sole exception of impeachment proceedings? What started in California has permeated the land in denying jury trials to save money thereby.
Am I talking for real? Absolutely! While not charged with a helmet violation, I was summons into court for a criminal trial. Therein I demanded the right under the Constitution to a jury trial. The judge responded that I was not entitled to a jury trial, and that he would try the matter. I assure you that this was not an impeachment matter as I was not a government official. So in such case, should a judge be entitled to the protection of judicial immunity when he/she willfully violates direct mandatory duty of judges to provide a jury trial? I should say not!
We must create a Special Independent Special Grand Jury just for the purpose of dealing with judicial immunity after all appeals are exhausted so that judicial independence is preserved. Problem solved. Iowa can only resolve their problem in this manner.
To witness what took place in the State of South Dakota, see www.sd-jail4judges.org wherein the Oil Conglomerates, the Banking Cartel, and the Insurance Industry jumped in along side of the government of S.D. to use tax-payer money to oppose the voters and the People's Initiative process to seek the balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability.
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief