If you have a moment, could you comment on the following couple of points? The presumption is that there HAS to be a way to reign in renegade judges as though that were the problem, although I think many people are wondering who wrote the script of which "Terri Schavo 2005" is but one scene.
The Bill of Rights has under Amendment VII: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Now it seems clear to me that the writers of the Constitution were quite provocatively declaring that judges are NOT God, since it would be much easier all around to just pick such people with infallible judgment instead of all the bother of letting 12 rather ordinary people decide a verdict which may very well be opposite to that which the judge is inclined.
And what's this in Article III, Section 2? "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme [sic] Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [preceding paragraph], the supreme [sic] Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Why have an appellate jurisdiction at all if lower-level judges WERE infallible and exempt from criticism?
What does it mean that the supreme Court can have appellate jurisdiction as to "Law AND Fact"???? I thought everybody has been saying upper-level courts are forbidden to review the [alleged] FACTS of Terri Schindler (schiavo)'s case and can only deal with legal PROCEDURE?
And then what would have prevented Congress (other than Democrat Party opposition) from voting to declare that this case was in fact suitable for fitting under "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"?
I believe that one good aspect of this whole judicial murder affair is that more and more people come to realize that the judiciary can be as corrupt and unworthy of trust as any other branch of government, and it is healthy to know that fact.
wildandcrazyrussian,
In my opinion you hit the nail on the head with the phrase "the script of which "Terri Schavo 2005" is but one scene." I also concur with your view that renegade judges are not the sole problem. They are functionaries in a long-range subversion of constitutional government.
Establishing legal precedent is part of a process by which the Judiciary becomes a type of backdoor Legislature. Practices too controversial to be touched by lawmakers are elevated to the level of law while directly contradicting existing statutes. If it is done via subtle enough increments, the creep is hard to spot. After years the good legislators finally revise written laws to conform with those long legislated from the bench. The law's integrity is restored and all is well.
District court judges could not accomplish the task all by themselves. They need the support of the appellate division because extrastatutory rulings are bound to be challenged before they become established opinion. You asked, "What does it mean that the supreme Court can have appellate jurisdiction as to "Law AND Fact"????" Well, obviously the Appellate is not limited to observing legal propriety but can very well examine facts too. That this is hardly done says more about judicial bureaucracy than it does about limitations.
Judges maintain friendships and associations like any other professional fraternity. They share law schools and practices and often entertain symbiotic political ambitions. An appellate judge is naturally biased toward reluctance when it comes to overturning a ruling. For this reason appeal courts often take a minimalist approach.
Appellate judge calls lower court judge on the phone: "Hey Mike, how's the wife? Good." "Say, on this case, did you stay on the pavement?" "Good, just needed to hear it. Anything major iffy? No? Good. OK then, we'll let it sail. Time for a few holes on Sunday? See you then." In reality the process has a few more components, but it largely boils down to the appeals court's taking the lower court's word for it that due process was observed. Is it difficult to imagine that certain rulings might be directed by a powerful network?
There are no doubt judges who take their work seriously and seek to live up to the standard of impartiality. Even they are not impervious to political and social pressures. There are also judges who will bend rules with few compunctions. Judges are human beings, and it would be utopian to think that the range of human traits is oddly different in them.
Judges can and are being bought all the time. Appeals can be steered to the right desk. Political favors can be called in. Political promises can be made. If push comes to shove, blackmail can be used. The press can be made to say whatever is expedient. We do not live in a world dominated by clean living and high thinking, despite the serial fables offered through the bread and circuses culture. The idea that officials operate in a vacuum and follow exclusively their own ideals is not supported by reality.
Discovering agendas and exposing connections is a thankless and therefore rare task. If you are an official you will be branded a whistleblower and find your life taking turns for the worse. If you are a private person you will be labeled a conspiracy nut. If you are a journalist your editor will gently steer you away from stories that are unpopular higher up. Everyone likes to preserve the cozy image of things being basically honest and benevolent. Where one draws the line is a personal choice and collectively translates into the degree public complacency.