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

* * Judicial Accountability v. Judicial Responsibility * *

Expand Messages
  • victoryusa@jail4judges.org
    J.A.I.L. News Journal ______________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California July 24,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 24 7:32 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      ______________________________________________________
      Los Angeles, California                                                   July 24, 2005

      ______________________________________________________
      Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
      Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
      www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.org
      ______________________________________________________
       
      Judicial Accountability
      v. Judicial Responsibility
      "Amending the state constitution to rein in the courts
      would make the judiciary 'a toothless debating society,' "
                                                     -- Judge Terry Bullock
       
      Kansas.com / The Wichita Eagle
       
      Posted on Fri, Jul. 15, 2005

      Judge blasts amendment to limit courts' powers


      BY JOHN HANNA

      Associated Press

      TOPEKA - Amending the state constitution to rein in the courts would make the judiciary "a toothless debating society," said the judge who handled the school finance lawsuit that forced legislators to spend more on education.

      Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock also disputed that the Kansas Supreme Court was "activist" when it ordered legislators to provide additional money for schools. He discounted the idea that state justices and judges are unaccountable because many of them are appointed.

      Bullock spoke Thursday to Topeka's Downtown Rotary Club, less than a week after the Supreme Court said a $148.4 million school finance plan approved by legislators met its mandate for more education funding.

      The Associated Press obtained a copy of Bullock's remarks after his appearance; the judge did not return telephone messages left at his home and office.

      The education funding plan emerged from a 12-day special session. Conservative Republicans pushed unsuccessfully for constitutional changes to limit judicial power, arguing that it would restore the traditional separation of powers. Others saw it as way to get back at the court for its ruling.

      Had the Legislature approved a proposed amendment, it would have gone on the ballot in a special statewide election in September at an estimated cost of $1.7 million.

      "If such an amendment passes, the court will become nothing more than a toothless debating society, and our whole concept of limited constitutional government -- where especially the government has to obey your constitution -- will be lost," Bullock said. "Next time, it might be you or your children or your grandchildren who need the court's protection in enforcing our most basic of legal values."

      The Supreme Court's order in June required legislators to provide an additional $143 million to schools. That came in a lawsuit filed in 1999 against the state by parents and administrators in Dodge City and Salina. Bullock handled the case in District Court and ruled against the state, which appealed.

      Bullock called the Supreme Court's order "rational, measured, respectful, exquisitely judicial and, if anything, restrained and conservative.

      "The court did not write a new funding law of its own," he said. "It did not take over the schools. It did not appoint an education czar."

      The court, however, did threaten to cut off funding to schools until legislators complied. Some lawmakers viewed that as a move by the court to take legislative action.

      Bullock also said that for several centuries, judges have made law by deciding cases where there are no legal precedents or statutes to follow.

      "How would you like to come to court with your dispute and have the judge say, 'We don't have a statute on that yet, go away'?" Bullock said.

      District judges in 53 counties, including Sedgwick, are elected directly. Judges in 52 counties, including Shawnee, and appellate court judges and justices are appointed by the governor.

      But Bullock noted that a nonpartisan commission nominates judicial candidates, who must later ask voters to retain them on the bench. He also noted that a Commission on Judicial Qualifications "can defrock me if I do anything 'unjudicial.'

      "How many of you have that kind of oversight?" Bullock said.


      The above dissertation illustrates how the judges fear judicial accountability. Judge Bullock states, "Amending the state constitution to rein in the courts would make the judiciary 'a toothless debating society.'" That is to say that no court could carry out its responsibilities and yet be accountable. Said another way, accountability and responsibility are incompatible, i.e., you can have one, but not both! Such reasoning is illustrative of a thief who thinks he is honest.
       
      Judge Bullock's statement, if true, flies squarely in the face of J.A.I.L. because J.A.I.L. unashamedly aims at "amending the state constitution to rein in the courts." His statement is so on point about J.A.I.L.'s effort that it could make one wonder if he really had the potential passage of J.A.I.L. nationwide in mind rather than local school financing, which would make the financing issue merely a ruse.
       
      Further, Judge Bullock argues, "that for several centuries, judges have made law by deciding cases where there are no legal precedents or statutes to follow." He goes on to ask: "How would you like to come to court with your dispute and have the judge say, 'We don't have a statute on that yet, go away'?"
       
      The judge's fallacy, like most of his brethren, lies in assuming that judges have authority to make laws (legislate from the bench). Judges may only fashion a remedy in equity by injunctive relief where there is no remedy at law in the particular case before the court seeking such relief, and an injustice would otherwise occur in that case without the court's equitable intervention. Such injunctive relief is neither legislating from the bench nor is it creating law, but is administering justice!
       
      If pro se litigants can figure this out via their legal research, how is it that professionally trained experts in the law, do not understand this simple principle --that judges do not, and cannot, pass laws? 
       
      -- Ron Branson
       
      J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
      Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
      JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      To be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
       
      "..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 Thoreau    <><
       
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.