I haven’t seen any attempt by Congress to perform their duty to oversee the judiciary. When there is a split decision at the Supreme Court it means that one decision would be reached in the court room of all of majority judges and a completely opposite decision in the minority judges’ court rooms. This is disgusting and shows how little the words either written in the law by Congress or the words in the Constitution mean to these unaccountable black-robed lawyers. The Constitution is exactly what Judge Scalia said it was – the words as they meant at the time they were written are how they are to be applied today and that the politically correct movement and changing social values in no way change what our organic laws say and mean. The Constitution is a living document in that there is an amendment provision and that is the only way it can be changed. The amendment process should be held in high regard and all amendment attempts should be monitored and managed with great care unlike the unlawful way the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.
It is completely unacceptable for one district court to rule in one fashion on a case and a different district court to render a completely different decision in the same or similar circumstances. This is done repeatedly and court and judge shopping is nothing but judicial tyranny. The Congress judicial oversight committees need to impeach judges that make frivolous ruling that are counter to other courts’ decisions. We need an amendment that limits the terms of all federal judges and holds them accountable through either an election process or some type of re-affirmation on at least a ten year interval.
While I’m on our judicial system, let me comment on how broken our grand jury and prosecutor system and relationships are. Prosecutors get way too many indictments via the grand jury without the defendants ever having a chance to present evidence or question witnesses, AND the vast majority of cases going to trial after a grand jury indictment end in a conviction and this are often because of the presumption of guilt because a defendant was, after all, indicted by the grand jury. The methods we use to reward prosecutors and judges for the sham convictions are completely fraudulent. Convictions and the number of grand jury indictments, in my way of thinking, are very poor measures of the conduct or quality of a prosecutor. Another missing element in our court trials is a jury of one’s peers. We need to go back to the era of our founding documents to see that most trials were local or within the context of a relatively small geographic area and the jury usually knew the defendant. Peers have never meant to be strangers or those with no degree of commonality. We have jury shopping all the time in all of our courts and the method of winnowing the jury pool is comical; for example, because one jury pool member wanted to know why Tim Geithner could get away with tax fraud and be Treasury Secretary, but the defendant being charged for similar behavior. Of course the judge dismissed this juror even though this person was a real peer of the defendant while those jurors chosen were clearly intimidated by the IRS and tax code being discussed.