I see a lot of confusion in comments in social media, and in the press, regarding Speaker Johnson's announcement that he may consider enactment of legislation abolishing certain federal courts.
The left all around the world have made a lot of ado from that statement claiming that the skies are falling, this is the end of democracy, Speaker Johnson is catering to the "dictator" President Trump, etc. etc. etc.
These statements have nothing to do with the law or the facts of the situation.
As far as the law is concerned, the only court that is embedded into the U.S. Constitution, Article III, is the U.S. Supreme Court.
The very first phrase of Article III Section I of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
There you go.
Only the "one Supreme Court" is the federal court that Congress may not abolish - but may certainly reform by legislation, changing the number of judges, changing whether they serve for life or not, changing where the court is located - for example, transferring it to somewhere, say, in a small town in Alabama, mandating that it accepts all petitions for review on the merits and not only on a "certiorari" basis, picking and choosing which cases and to what degree the U.S. Supreme Court will review.
All of that is within the power of Congress to change - and Congress may just as well change it once Republicans have the majority both in Congress and in the White House.
As to "other inferior courts" - both the federal district courts, and the federal appellate courts, they have long became an abomination of privilege and corruption.
The makers of the U.S. Constitution apparently foresaw that, putting into the text of Article III Section I that the "inferior" federal courts are those courts that the Congress may "establish and ordain" only "from time to time", clearly meaning that there may be a time when a certain "inferior" federal court exists, established and ordained by Congress, and there may be a time that it won't.
So, Speaker Johnson said nothing revolutionary, simply invoking Article III Section I of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and the hysterics about his announcement that a certain law is about to be prepared for enactment, and that somehow that is undermining democracy and the so-called "rule of law" is nothing other than irresponsible political fear-mongering.
As to why such federal courts should be abolished or reformed, Speaker Johnson has all the grounds to abolish or reform those courts in every possible way.
The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the power to make or amend laws to the U.S. Congress, the power to enforce the law to the U.S. President and it grants to the judiciary - remember, "one Supreme Court and any inferior courts that Congress from time to time will establish and ordain", Section I - only limited powers, enumerated in Section 2 of Article III:
"Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Nowhere in the text of the entire Article III of the U.S. Constitution will you find the power of the judiciary to MAKE or CHANGE the laws made by Congress THROUGH INTERPRETATION.
While the federal judiciary certainly has the right to interpret the law, it may not exceed in its interpretation the plain English meaning and the legislative intent of Congress, nor may it infringe upon the Congress's same legislative intent in determining how exactly such laws are to be enforced.
I have a problem denominating the 235 judges put onto the federal seats in the previous 4 years as put there "by the Biden administration".
Even with all the obvious signs, apparent not only to every American, but to the rest of the world, that the White House was hijacked during the previous term by an unknown person who ruled behind the scenes on behalf of a mentally incapacitated man, I did not see yet any public official with authority to determine the question whether any judges put on the bench during the "Biden administration" were put there lawfully, to determine whether the country was "run" in the previous term by a man without mental capacity to do so - and to VOID any and all actions.
I believe Speaker Johnson owes it to the American people to hold Congressional hearings on the mental incapacitation of Joe Biden, and the date from which forwards Joe Biden could not be considered, as a matter of law, a man whose decisions could be considered as knowing, voluntary and binding upon the country.
That is not difficult to do.
The looking back into the incapacitation of people is done all the time by courts - in verifying, looking back in time, whether people had the requisite mental capacity to do a variety of things: marry, enter into contracts, be held responsible for crimes, or make wills.
That must be done now.
=======
Coming down to the technicality of what can be done with "inferior" federal courts, of the first level and of the appellate courts, a lot can be done to, if not abolish, to reform them.
First, such courts should be stripped of their marble palaces, transferred to electronic status only, other than for jury trials, and, since jury trials are very rare, a building can be rented for a jury trial also "from time to time", on an "as needed" basis.
That alone will save us, the American taxpayers, tons and tons of money that we can use otherwise for ourselves - our federal taxes can be drastically reduced.
My husband and I have recently experienced the handling of a court case in full electronic mode, complete with an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses testifying remotely, through Microsoft Teams (we won the case on the merits).
New York's electronic filing system, as well as holding hearings remotely through Microsoft Teams may, with proper training materials and proper accommodations provided to individuals with disabilities, as well as with proper arrangements made for attendance of the public, may provide a good basis for such reformed federal courts.
The pool of judges at all levels, federal and appellate, can be one and the same, and I would reform who may become such a judge.
I would certainly not restrict federal judgeship to lawyers, and especially to licensed lawyers, and I will certainly remove the requirement of licensing from representation of individual plaintiffs or defendants in federal court, especially the requirement that such a representative arguing a case in federal court on behalf of a client must be first licensed by a state government, who is often a defendant in the case.
I would also introduce transparent AI-assisted assignments of cases to federal judges, subject to free public access and review, and effective mechanisms, now lacking, of challenging what a party may consider an incorrect or harmful assignment.
What I mean by transparent AI-assisted assignments of cases to federal judges, subject to free public access and review - which must certainly apply to state court, too, in my view, is that the backroom dealings of "judge-shopping" should end, the question should be posed as to every case to AI to instantly analyze the existing pool of the judiciary, the case presented, the applicable law, and the decisions of judges present in the pool of judiciary on that applicable law.
I would also require every federal judge to plug into the system their family tree to the 6th degree of consanguinity and affinity, affinity understood broadly and not only through marriage, given that marriage is no longer needed in this country for a committed relationship, as well as of each of the judge's law partners and close personal friends.
I would have each party and lawyer for the party to submit the same information, with a break for indigent pro se's, allowed to conduct such verification at the taxpayer's expense - funded with the money saved from unnecessary renting or ownership and maintenance of marble palaces/courthouses.
I would have AI-assisted verification of cross-matches and automatic removal of judges related to the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity to any party or any lawyer in the law firm representing the party from consideration for assignment.
I would have judges, parties and lawyers to similarly submit information of their childhood and college friends, and also submit the information to AI-analysis, putting it, not as a point of direct disqualification, but as a question mark, requiring AI analysis of available public data on social media and in the public records across the nation to analyze whether there are any foreseeable problems with conflicts of interest, and pointing such potential problems out before the judge has been chose to preside over a given case.
I would forbid all federal judges any social contacts with the parties and lawyers in front of him, with severe, non-discretionary punishments for violations.
We as a nation do have technology to implement these changes and should get out of the stone age as to how our public servants, judges, decide our disputes regarding our life, liberty, property, custody of children.
By public review and control I mean that any member of the public may have access to the same AI tools to run a double-check on the AI-assisted assignment of judges, and must have access to the full AI-generated report as to each judge's assignment to the case, any potential problems with impartiality or conflicts of interest raised, but discounted in the report.
I would introduce, nevertheless, peremptory challenges of judges and voir dire of judges by parties, to ensure impartiality, same or similar to how voir dire of jurors is done.
I would expressly take away power of judges to review motions to recuse themselves.
I would expressly take away power of judges to punish for motions to recuse.
I would expressly take away power of judges to impose sanctions for legal arguments made on the basis of the U.S. Constitution and seeking to protect civil rights, no matter how novel or improbable the argument seems to the judge.
I would allow free taxpayer funded AI-based legal research to all pro se parties in all cases in federal court.
I would allow free public access, same as already exists in NYSCEF system in New York, to all documents in all filed public court cases.
I would allow, same as in NYSCEF, any member of the public to file lawsuits without having to first gain permissions from anybody.
I would eliminate all laws that restrict access to court to prisoners, such as "three strikes and you are out" existing now, punishing the often indigent and illiterate pro se prisoners for not being able to navigate the quagmire of rules created by professional lawyers and judges.
I would allow AI-assisted explanations of the law to pro se prisoners and enable access to centralized AI-assisted law libraries in prisons.
I would require of appellate courts the same degree of review, with full memorandums, of all pro se appeals. Right now pro se federal appeals are discarded without full memorandums, reviewed practically only by non-judicial personnel.
I would require judges to actually take and actually review every case they are presiding over, with assistance of AI, but nobody else.
If the judge is unable to do that, he or she should not be a judge or, if the judge is overloaded, he or she should not be assigned that case, as determined with AI assistance, too.
That will eliminate the current intolerable situation where law clerks and not judges de facto determine cases, putting in question validity of all judicial decisions in state and federal courts.
These proposed sketched changes will eliminate a lot of corruption, strip a lot of privilege off the federal judiciary, and ensure a freer access to court for the public.
Where judges are put into their position for political purposes - as the 235 judges were by the adm, instead of interpreting laws made by Congress and handed over to the executive branch for enforcement, make their own laws through interpretation and attempt to undermine and replace the executive discretion with their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment