THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
When judge engages in sex with a court clerk in his chambers AND IN PUBLIC PLACES - that is not a big deal? Obviously, not.
He was taken off the bench, but not suspended or disbarred and remains an attorney "in good standing".
Recently, two more judges, now in California, also reportedly engaged in sex in the courthouses, one with a court clerk, in chambers and IN PUBLIC PLACES, and the other judge - with multiple different women, in his chambers. They were neither suspended from the bench, nor removed - they were simply "censured" and they are continuing to be judges! Naturally, their law licenses are also intact.
Why such a light discipline? Is it because the disciplining authorities themselves consist of judges who have a vested interest not to make rulings in such situations which may backfire against themselves. Is having sex in chambers such a popular pastime among judges?
You know why they were given only a censure and allowed to remain on the bench? They "admitted wrongdoing" and "expressed remorse". Imagine. They did not know they were engaged in wrongdoing when they had sex in chambers, one judge - with a court employee - but as soon as they were caught, they "expressed remorse". So what? Didn't they still betray public trust? Didn't they still dropped the prestige of their profession? Didn't they still show that their judgment is so poor as to their own actions that they cannot be judges of actions of other people?
If this kind of behavior of judges (who are also lawyers) is acceptable - why do we really regulate the legal profession, to give judges power to decide who may and may not earn a livelihood based on whether they criticize such judges or not.
And I am also interested and, frankly concerned, about one more issue: what is the fate of those who reported the California sex-starved judges?
In Michigan, the judge had the stupidity to "self-report" himself.
In California, there is no information as to how the two judges' embarrassment and discipline came about.
Imagine that they remain in the courthouse where the possible reporter would be their subordinate.
Are the reporters still employed by the court system?
Or are they the only people really punished for revealing to the public that judges use their chambers as a free tax-funded dating motel?