Americans are WILDLY disapproving of judges and our judicial system. It's a chance we have to right the wrongs and rewrite how we do things.
There are two types of judges in the US - elected judges (typically in the states) and appointed judges.
With elected judges, they serve for a term and have to win re-election. Having lived in a state with elected judges, I hate the system and it's profoundly easy to subvert and ruin. We already know how eager these judges are to fix a broken election system rampant with fraud and abuse.
Appointed judges serve a different master, but that master is not the interests of the people or their well-being either. Oftentimes they serve for however long they want, sometimes even coming back from retirement to "serve" some more. The only way to remove these judges is a byzantine process that has rarely if ever been used.
Here's my proposal:
1. Every new executive gets to choose ALL the judges. That is, the judges serve until the executive no longer re-nominates them. The executive can also fire judges whenever he wants to.
2. Higher judges can remove lower judges for horrendously bad judgements, just like higher officials can fire lower officials. This absolves the executive and legislative bodies from having to "meddle in judicial affairs" while allowing the president or governor to appoint a higher judge who goes through and cleans house for them. This way, the higher judges are responsible, directly, for the behavior of the lower courts.
3. Judges who break the law, even if the law is broken by their judgments, IE, ordering someone to do something illegal, get arrested (by the executive) on the spot, put on trial and sentenced. Judges can thus judge other judges, up or down.
4. Remove the concept of judicial review entirely. Judges cannot write, amend, or interpret the laws. If there is a law that is ambiguous, they have to appeal to the legislative and executive branches for interpretation. Remember, their job is to settle disputes.
5. You do not appeal for a redress of grievances through the judicial system. You appeal directly to the executive or legislative branches. If they ignore you, your only remedy is the ballot box. Having judges play interference in this process makes the people think they have some kind of control over the government when they do not. Thus, you cannot sue your governments at all. It was always silly to think that this was a valid approach. If government tramples your rights, the only peaceful resolution is to get a new government through the ballot box.
Some other notes:
Every governor or president should be in control, 100%, of any and all executive actions the government does. That means hiring / firing at will and interpreting the laws however he sees fit. This isn't a word game we're playing here. It's a game of force and the executive is the strongarm of the government.
Likewise, the legislative branch has ONE job and that is to write the laws. No one gets to second-guess them. They maintain the codex of laws and no one gets to add one drop of ink to it without their permission.
Lastly, "who watches the watchers?" That's the job of the people. The people express their will at the ballot box. If they aren't heard, then they are expected to revoke the charter of government by raising the militia and subjecting the country to rule by militia. "Every ballot is a bullet" should be a motto of our country. Let's not kid around. We're doing government stuff because we don't want to have to shoot each other.
How holds the people to account? That's God's job. If the people serve Him, then they get blessed. If not, they get punished for it.
There are two types of judges in the US - elected judges (typically in the states) and appointed judges.
With elected judges, they serve for a term and have to win re-election. Having lived in a state with elected judges, I hate the system and it's profoundly easy to subvert and ruin. We already know how eager these judges are to fix a broken election system rampant with fraud and abuse.
Appointed judges serve a different master, but that master is not the interests of the people or their well-being either. Oftentimes they serve for however long they want, sometimes even coming back from retirement to "serve" some more. The only way to remove these judges is a byzantine process that has rarely if ever been used.
Here's my proposal:
1. Every new executive gets to choose ALL the judges. That is, the judges serve until the executive no longer re-nominates them. The executive can also fire judges whenever he wants to.
2. Higher judges can remove lower judges for horrendously bad judgements, just like higher officials can fire lower officials. This absolves the executive and legislative bodies from having to "meddle in judicial affairs" while allowing the president or governor to appoint a higher judge who goes through and cleans house for them. This way, the higher judges are responsible, directly, for the behavior of the lower courts.
3. Judges who break the law, even if the law is broken by their judgments, IE, ordering someone to do something illegal, get arrested (by the executive) on the spot, put on trial and sentenced. Judges can thus judge other judges, up or down.
4. Remove the concept of judicial review entirely. Judges cannot write, amend, or interpret the laws. If there is a law that is ambiguous, they have to appeal to the legislative and executive branches for interpretation. Remember, their job is to settle disputes.
5. You do not appeal for a redress of grievances through the judicial system. You appeal directly to the executive or legislative branches. If they ignore you, your only remedy is the ballot box. Having judges play interference in this process makes the people think they have some kind of control over the government when they do not. Thus, you cannot sue your governments at all. It was always silly to think that this was a valid approach. If government tramples your rights, the only peaceful resolution is to get a new government through the ballot box.
Some other notes:
Every governor or president should be in control, 100%, of any and all executive actions the government does. That means hiring / firing at will and interpreting the laws however he sees fit. This isn't a word game we're playing here. It's a game of force and the executive is the strongarm of the government.
Likewise, the legislative branch has ONE job and that is to write the laws. No one gets to second-guess them. They maintain the codex of laws and no one gets to add one drop of ink to it without their permission.
Lastly, "who watches the watchers?" That's the job of the people. The people express their will at the ballot box. If they aren't heard, then they are expected to revoke the charter of government by raising the militia and subjecting the country to rule by militia. "Every ballot is a bullet" should be a motto of our country. Let's not kid around. We're doing government stuff because we don't want to have to shoot each other.
How holds the people to account? That's God's job. If the people serve Him, then they get blessed. If not, they get punished for it.