The much claimed judicial independence is hailed as a reason for lifetime tenure of federal judges.
Judges are claimed to be independent of politics.
Yet, judges nominated by Democratic presidents, as well as judges nominated by Republican presidents, linger in office without desired retirement to ensure that their successor will be nominated by a president of the same party that nominated them. That does not seem as being far away from politics to me.
Having as long-time friends high-ranking government officials, as Judge Antonin Scalia claimed the U.S. Supreme Court justices have a history of having, also does not put judges away from politics.
Being "free from political pressure" translates in everyday English as not having to re-run for judicial office.
Yet, judges come to that judicial office well advanced in age, at or long after 50 years of age. At this age, lawyers are usually very well set in their careers and already generated enough income and have enough savings to retire comfortably, judicial election or appointment or not.
So, talking about judicial independence in terms of being free from judicial elections, in application to representatives of the very-well paid legal profession (and majority of judges are not paupers when coming to the bench, they are usually either successful governmental officials or successful law professors) is not really forthcoming.
What is also taken out of the consideration of the so-called judicial independence is that at the time judges usually come to the U.S. Supreme Court bench (and federal bench), they usually have kids of college age at the least.
Those kids most often follow in the path of the judge-parent.
They need to make their own career in law, and these children may and do become a real danger to judicial independence of their parents who are life-tenured judges.
Exercise your "judicial discretion" my way - and I will appoint your child to a prestigious and well-paying position, a stepping stone for the child's further legal and political career.
And judge Antonin Scalia veered that way.
He decided Bush v Gore for Bush, where Bush's running mate Dick Cheney was Scalia's longtime friend.
And Scalia's son was nearly immediately appointed into the Department of Labor.
Judges have children.
They have friends, siblings, in-laws and friends.
All of them want their careers to be furthered.
Judges, such as Antonin Scalia, believe that recusing from cases of friends is impracticable, as it will stall the work of the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, they sit on cases of their friends.
And rule for their friends.
And, since their friends may be in the U.S. legislature, the U.S. legislature does not impeach, and does not enact rules that would stop this corruption.
And judges write their own rules of judicial conduct - and enforce them in their own closed circles, or rather, magnanimously decide that there is no misconduct because "all U.S. Supreme Court judges had as friends high-ranking government officials", as Scalia said.
Judges attend duck-hunting trips with friends who are parties in front of them.
Judges attend Christmas parties, in other words, are wined and dined, by parties in front of them.
And they can be doing it for a lifetime - because there is life tenure.
For that reason, I believe, life tenure should be replaced, by constitutional amendment, to 2-year terms maximum.
And the U.S. Supreme Court should be expanded to 200 to 250 judges - enough to serve the growing population and caseload in this country's courts. 9 judges, most of them past the usual retirement age, many of them well past that age, to serve 13 circuits and 50 states as the court of original jurisdiction and the ultimate appellate court from state and federal courts is simply grossly inadequate.
This country has a large supply of brilliant men and women who can serve as Supreme Court justices. Let them serve. Let them not have the time get entrenched with their "good friends" in the government, undermining the "checks and balances" principles upon which this country is founded.
Let them not have the time to build their children's careers upon favors given to their "longtime friends".
And let's address our respective U.S. Senators to introduce laws to make judges really accountable for corruption and impropriety in office - because the "self-regulating" judiciary, as it exists now is - no, not a joke, it is a tyranny that can cost this country a lot of turmoil and blood to change, if it is not changed radically, peacefully, through lawful process - and soon.
Shorter terms in office and larger number of justices will prevent the most severe cases of corruption, nepotism and cronyism.
Voters should also push their U.S. Senators and representatives in Congress to introduce and enact legislation preventing employment of family members of federal judges in other branches of federal government, vaster disclosures of income by federal judges, including non-monetary gifts like free trips and dinner invitations, and significant and well-defined punishments for judges for failure to disclose conflicts of interest, such as presiding over cases where a party or attorney for a party is a family member or friend of a judge.
Without such drastic changes we will be where we are - in a mess where ex parte communications of Antonin Scalia during hunting trips with a friend who is a party in litigation, or promotion of Judge Scalia's son's career at the expense of the American public after the father put a particular president on the throne.
Quid pro quo in the judiciary should end, soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment