“Judge (noun) – A public officer appointed to decide cases in a court of law…A leader having temporary authority in ancient Israel in the period between Joshua and the kings.”
We have come to a time when we should have a serious discussion about the roles, duties, responsibilities, and accountability of judges in our Constitutional Republic. Judges are appointed, or elected, to a position where they are to judge (verb) the people according to a standard. That standard is the rule of law.
First, I am not a lawyer, certainly not a judge and never will be. However, the title Judge in ancient Israel was bestowed upon those chosen by the Judeo-Christian faith heritage God. My favorite judge from the Old Testament scriptures is Samson. If there was ever a warrior Judge, well, Samson is the embodiment of one. It was Samson who took the jawbone of a donkey and crushed the skulls of Philistine soldiers at Lehi. And we all know the story of Samson, blinded and mocked, who “brought down da house” sacrificing his own life.
Speaking of diversity, God even raised up a female judge in Israel, Deborah, perhaps the first woman Judge in history. Not only was Deborah one who issued judgment, but also guidance; she was a prophet. And, on top of that, her prophetic vision enabled her to aid in a military victory of the Israelites over the Canaanites.
Article III: The Least Powerful Branch?
In our Republic, Article III of our Constitution, and respective States have so in their constitutions, articulate the duty, responsibility, scope, and jurisdiction of the judicial branch. Article III is not a very extensive read; matter of fact, what one ascertains from reading Article III of the Constitution is that the judicial branch is the least powerful. The legislative branch is the most important within our federal government.
The only court of judges that Article III creates is the US Supreme Court. The lower federal district and appellate courts, referred to as inferior courts, are established by Congress. Remember, the framers of the Constitution, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (who would be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) established a system of checks and balances between these coequal branches of government. It is important to understand that Article III establishes the SCOTUS as the court of original jurisdiction between the states of our Nation.
Good Behavior Required
Article III states in Section One, something that is critical for us to analyze and assess in today’s current environment. It says, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”
The question we must ask in these current days is, what defines “good Behaviour” for these appointed judges? This is not about conservative vs liberal judges; there should be one standard, the law, and adjudication should be based upon law, not ideological activist leanings.
I find it rather disturbing and disconcerting that we have entered into an era where judicial decisions are clearly biased. It does not take someone with a legal background or law degree to see the incessant instances of “bad behavior” when it comes to judges.
Inferior Injunctions
When we have inferior court judges who are issuing decisions and injunctions not upon the law, but rather upon their ideology, the hypocrisy is evident. “Houston, we have a problem.”
All over the country, we have inferior court judges who are issuing injunctions on the issue of illegal immigration. The qualifying adjective being “illegal”, so why do we have judges making decisions favoring individuals who have violated our rule of law? Or, let me make it plain. Where were these judges when a certain presidential administration was in violation of our rule of law, Article IV, Section 4, and openly allowing illegal immigrants entry into our Republic? Or why do we have inferior court judges who are aiding and abetting criminal illegal immigrants in their courts of law?
Let’s be honest, the SCOTUS issued a decision that Joe Biden did not have the enumerated power to forgive student loan debt. He did it anyway. Why did we not have inferior court injunctions? After all, even Nancy Pelosi stated that the President did not have the enumerated power to do such; that power is enumerated to the legislative branch.
Misaligned Loyalties?
Why do we have so many judges in America who favor criminals over the rule of law? Why do we have these incessant attacks against the Second Amendment when it clearly says, “shall not be infringed?” I find it unconscionable that there are certain States in our Republic that say to me, “Nope, your constitutional right does not apply in our State.” Hmm, that seems to me a violation of Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. Why aren’t judges slapping down these belligerent states? Oops, I forgot, it is no longer about judges making decisions according to the rule of law, but rather the totalitarian rule of their ideology, hence the term “activist judges.”
Georgetown Law professor Jonathan Turley and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz are two of the most astute intellectual legal minds in our Country. Their assessment and analysis of judicial decisions and actions are non-biased and thorough. I would love to see them explain to this simple ole Soldier. What exactly defines “good Behaviour” as the framers of our Constitution wrote it for judges? It is due time that we let our appointed judges know that a lifelong tenure does not constitute a basis for disregard of our rule of law. There has to be a standard, and accountability that goes along with that standard of good behavior not being held.
Judges must come to a realization that they do not owe allegiance to the person who appointed them to the position or their ideology. Judges owe their allegiance not even to the people, but rather to a standard of adjudication, our rule of law, our Constitution. Marxist leftists love to drone on about “threats to our democracy.” Again, their ignorance prevails since America is a Constitutional Republic.
Leftists have weaponized the media, academia, and the courts as their means to gain and maintain power and control, even as they fail to hold the Executive and Legislative branches. A real and true threat to our Republic, and its representative democracy, is having black robed tyrants who deem themselves above the law and not adjudicators of the law, but rather as rogue disciples of a philosophy of governance that is antithetical to our rule of law.
That ain’t “good Behaviour” and it is grounds for their removal. And it is the proper time to start having Congressional proceedings to enact such measures. That is not political.
If you are a judge and do not decide based upon the rule of law, that is unethical, unlawful, unconscionable, and unconstitutional.
Steadfast and Loyal.
