Last month we experienced a weekend of protest. Apparently, the protesters don’t want America to be ruled by kings. Most of us certainly agree with that sentiment, but curiously, the protesters seemed unconcerned about unelected government officials who are acting more like kings every day – officials with lifetime positions, who have decided that their authority supersedes that of our elected representatives.
Rogue district and appellate judges have joined the resistance against the will of the self-governed. They’re tilting Lady Justice’s scales based on their personal preferences by
- Interpreting laws in ways never intended,
- Ruling on cases in which they have no jurisdiction, and
- Infringing on the constitutional authorities of the legislative and executive branches.
When public confidence in “equal justice under law” is gone, our pact of civilized behavior, the Constitution, will go with it. Nobody knows what will follow, but it will not be a free and prosperous America.
The checks and balances our founders intended to keep the judiciary in check have failed.
The President has no ability to educate or discipline the judiciary. His power is limited to appointment, not corrective action.
The Supreme Court can correct errant decisions of the lower courts, but it is not empowered to take systemic corrective actions. The Supreme Court could make impeachment referrals to Congress, but it seems more concerned with comity than integrity.
Congress is constitutionally empowered to take corrective action, but is far too polarized for impeachment to be a deterrent, and too passive to consider subpoenaing and questioning misbehaving judges.
The reality is that our federal court system has become hopelessly unaccountable. The Supreme Court has little more than moral authority over the lower courts, which it will not exercise. Congress could fix the mess, but will not. The choice is simple: let America become the next example of failed self-governance, or do something ourselves.
Judges assume they have no “skin in the game” and are emboldened to defy the Constitution, duly passed legislation, and the will of the people. We need to change their risk/reward calculus. We need an operational system in which departing from their official role comes with real risks.
Fortunately, we have the means to do that by working through our states. State legislatures can use their Article V authority to call a convention of states (not to be confused with a constitutional convention) to launch the amendment process. Constitutional amendments can be used to put consequences back in the judicial vocabulary, in a way not subject to even Supreme Court review. Amendments are inherently constitutional.
Via a constitutional amendment we could impose term limits on judges. Nothing says, “you’re not a king” like having an expiration date on one’s service. Unfortunately, Presidents don’t have a great track record of appointing constitutionally obedient judges, and a great deal of damage can be done during a 4- or 8-year term of service by a miscreant in a black robe.
A convention of states could also send an amendment to the states for ratification, which would empower the states to recall non-elected and non-constitutional government officers. Such an amendment could authorize a simple majority of state legislatures to remove district and appellate judges, department heads, or regulatory bureaucrats who step outside the bounds of their authority. Elected politicians and Supreme Court Justices would be exempt from state recall (as constitutional officers), but still subject to congressional removal by impeachment.
How differently might lower court judges behave if 26 states could fire them for
- Considering a would-be assassin’s gender preference in sentencing,
- Blocking the deportation of illegal aliens,
- Prohibiting the downsizing of the federal workforce, or
- Commanding the federal government to spend money it doesn’t have?
Why, we might actually become a nation of law and order again. Imagine that!
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Might I add to your list of outrageous court rulings is a district court saying the Pentagon must accept “transgenders” into the service. I remember the judge saying that if anyone could show this harms the service, she would buy them a box of cigars. I would tell this intellectual moron that doesn’t matter, what matters is us being able to win our wars, and having males saying they’re females causes disruption. Not to mention they’re non-deployable for years. Finally, last time I checked the US Constitution does not allow the courts to set military recruiting policy
How about how transgenders in the military would affect combat logistics? How much less emergency first aid medicine would the logistics infrastructure be able to handle if it also had to handle hormone therapy, which all transgenders require?
I’m a cop, a few years ago I was dispatched to a VA run shelter (former hotel they took over), and they had a veteran who said “she“ was transsexual, and the VA was playing for her injections, etc. I finished my investigation that I thought. “How screwed up can this be.
Yes, we have vets waiting on needed treatment and we are funding elective procedures like this!