Websites keeping data on corrupt judges

An honest judiciary; recognizing the lawful authority of juries; attention to lawful process.
Post Reply
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Websites keeping data on corrupt judges

Post by editor » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:43 pm

--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Websites keeping data on corrupt judges

Post by editor » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:10 pm

Today's article in the New York Times,

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ourts.html

contains a chart which shows that Trump may have the opportunity to seat more new judges to the federal judiciary than any president in the last forty years.

This opportunity presents itself because shortly after Carter became president, "Congress established 152 new federal judgeships, expanding the federal judiciary by nearly 30 percent and allowing Mr. Carter to stack the federal courts despite a presidency that lasted only one term."

Most federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, and the time is finally arriving for the Carter appointees to vacate their seats. Actually it started arriving while Obama was still in office. During Obama's eight years, he appointed close to 40% of the federal judiciary.

The Republicans did more than deny Obama the opportunity to replace Scalia. Over the last two years of Obama's term, the Republicans refused to approve numerous federal judgeships.

"Currently, 112 of the 870 authorized judgeships with lifetime appointments remain vacant — 33 have been vacant for more than two years."

In addition to this wonderful opportunity to take back the tenor of the courts, we have a president who campaigned on being in favor of Term Limits.

It was never intended that Congressmen have lifetime appointments. In the beginning, members of Congress were businessmen much like Trump. They sacrificed a few years to spend a term or two in Congress for the benefit of their country. Today, being elected to Congress is often the equivalent of being given the lifetime title of a Nobleman.

Since Trump has already decided Congressmen should not have lifetime appointments, it might not be a huge stretch for him to decide the same about federal judges.

I don't know what I'm proposing here, but maybe some of you have some ideas?

It seems to me a term of years with a cap might not be the best idea. However, peer review might be a very good idea.

The previous article in this thread already referenced two websites which keep data on corrupt judges.

If federal judges were subject to periodic review, and risked losing their seats if their scores in ethics, competence, etc. fell below certain levels, the resulting accountability would be a step in the right direction.

Advances in technology are making many of the old way of doing things obsolete.

On a related topic, I am very much in favor of the same types of website clearinghouses taking the place of professional organizations such as the Bar Associations, the American Medical Association, and professional licensing bureaucracies for real estate, insurance, hairdressers, etc.

In these latter cases, unrelated to judges, I'm in favor of the public being able to make its own choices, based on satisfaction ratings.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Post Reply