As the world watches the unelected highly partisan appointed U.S. Federal Judges attempt to usurp the powers of the Oval Office, and Americans get about fed up with the practice, they search for what to do about it.
Because most people believe whatever the “experts” tell them and fail to do their own homework on issues today, there are three critical false assumptions circulating the conversation.
The power to “interpret” - does not appear anywhere in Article III as a function of the courts. But if it did, that power would be limited to the definition of the word in 1787, “to translate legalese into plain English for those who do not grasp legalese, as if translating from one language to another.” But the Founding Documents are all written in plain English. No “interpreter” needed.
Lifetime Appointment - does not actually exist in Article III. It’s an assumption based upon these three words “during good behavior.” Article III does not address what happens when a Judge demonstrates BAD behavior.
Impeachment the only way to remove a bad judge - But the only mention of “impeachment” in Article III is this; “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;” Nothing in Article III suggests that a bad judge can only be removed from office via “impeachment.”
To be clear, court opinions are not the “supreme law of this land,” the U.S. Constitution is and that document means exactly what it says, in plain English, nothing more or less. In fact, according to the Constitution text, only Congress is granted sole lawmaking power in Article I.
The good news…is the U.S. Supreme Court just beat down the lower court attempt to run the Executive Branch from their unelected office. The bad news is…people still think a court opinion is the final arbiter!
Let’s be honest… the “assumptions” that court appointments are “lifetime” terms is a Judicial Branch “interpretation” of the words “during good behaviour.” Likewise, the assumption that a bad judge can only be removed from the bench “upon impeachment” is also a Judicial Branch “interpretation” based upon no such language in Article III.
So, according to these Judicial Branch interpretations, they are appointed for life and can only be removed via impeachment, when nothing in Article III suggests either assumption. How convenient, knowing that Congress has failed to remove bad judges from the bench via impeachment! The Senate is the problem!
What is the proper solution to “bad behaviour” from the bench?
I think there are two critical facts in this regard.
1. A judge’s attempt to usurp the powers of the Oval Office from the bench is an attempt to undermine the Constitution and subvert the will of millions of American voters. Usurpation, subversion, sedition, are all forms of “treason” under U.S. Criminal Codes. These acts absolutely qualify as “bad behaviour” at the very least. The recent Supreme Court ruling establishes that these lower court judges have been “acting beyond their authority and jurisdictions.”
2. Such acts are “high crimes” under U.S. Criminal Codes. They, therefore, present a clear and present danger to the country, the citizenry and the Rule of Constitutional Law. As a result, criminal codes can and should be used to not only remove bad actors from the courts, but to further prosecute them for attempting to overthrow the powers of the Executive Branch.
This can and should be led by the U.S. Attorney General and Department of Justice.
Thomas Jefferson was right again!
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
Lincoln had it right too…
“…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Great post. The more Judges we have the less freedom and liberty. I think it is important before a Judge is appointed they should be asked questions right from this post so they understand their purpose.
Lex...ins't also true that CONGRESS created the lower court and Congress can shut them down, consolidate them and determine what cases they hear. I see the problem resting in the hands of a gutless constitutionally illiterate Congress. But I do love your premise that these Judges are guilty of crimes and should be treated as such. That would shut them up for a while now wouldn't it. WHO THE HECK IS ADVISING this administration. I was not ever thrilled with the nomination of Pam Bondi (too many leftist associations in her background) but I am now totally disappointed in her.