An Impartial
and Unbiased Judiciary...
So, with all the political controversies of late and all the deals
being struck on Capitol Hill, and the uproar over the left-wing agenda
being pursued by the White House and the Congressional leadership, one
thing that people are not really paying attention to is the court
system. I've been thinking about this for many, many months now but I
will admit that it was Beck's presentation last night
(The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free... Or
Die, produced for Fox News by Glenn Beck, originally aired Jan 22,
2010) that made me decide to write this up today.
In 1961, Hollywood released a film
entitled Judgment at Nuremberg starring the
great Spencer Tracey, based on one of the famous trials that occurred
following WWII after the defeat of Nazi Germany. The defendants on
trial in this court room were four of Hitler's judges. These were high
ranking men in the Minsitry of Justice who remained in their
respective positions after the rise of the Nazis, when the courts lost
their impartial and independent standing and instead became a tool of
the state to carry out the wishes of the party, dispensing
"justice" according to the decrees of Hitler and his
accomplices, watching more and more of politics and bigotry enter the
court room with each passing day. One of these in particular, Ernst
Janning, is presented as a man of high standing in judicial and
academic circles prior to the rise of National Socialism. At the
height of the film's drama, Tracy's character, the Chief Justice,
being the tie-breaking vote since the other two justices were divided
in their opinion, had to weigh what he had heard and ultimately decide
the case for himself. Finally, these were declared guilty of crimes
against humanity steming from, among others charges, that they were
willing accomplices to political executions, arbitrary detainment of
citizens, forced sterilization of undesirables, and what we would now
term ethnic cleansing. For these crimes, these men were sentenced to
life in prison, Janning included.
People forget that Hitler consolidated and maintained his control in
many respects by usurping the judiciary and corrupting the law. Look
back at the recent Supreme Court judgment on the FEC laws instituted
under the McCain-Feingold act. Former Congressman J. D. Hayworth, on
one of his last radio broadcasts, had as a guest the man who launched
the case against the prohibition of corporate advocacy adds
immediately prior to an election. The issue at question was a video
production. One of the justices asked in earlier arguments whether if
this were a book instead of a film if it would still be prohibited,
even if it did little more than state the candidate's name. Speaking
to Mr. Hayworth and his listeners, this gentleman from Citizens United
stated that as he sat in the court room in a following session, he
listened to the solicitor general for the government (Elena Kagan) propose to the court that
she believed the government already had the power to censor books and
essentially said that the court didn't have to worry about it because
they've never exercised it. When Justice Roberts (I believe it was
him) heard this, the guest stated how he saw Roberts lean forward,
looking as though his head was about to explode, and stated to this
attorney most firmly, "We do not place our first amendment rights
in the hands of Federal Election Commission bureaucrats!" That
prospect alone should have made this a unanimous verdict. But it was
only a 5-4 ruling. Ask yourself, "Why?" Is it relevant that
this pretty well represents those members who view the law
conservatively vs. those who view it liberally?
Recall Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearings and the controversy
surrounding several statements she made about how judges had the power
to effectively make law through their rulings (legislating from the
bench.) The very thing former President George W. Bush stated was
going on routinely. He was ridiculed relentlessly for this position
yet here we saw a federal judge stating that this was a real
occurance.
Consider your own local elections. How many people research the judges
on the ballot? Do you know if the rulings they have made during their
time on the bench have been good or bad? Do you even have the legal
knowledge necessary to make that determination?
Now consider federal courts. These are not elected positions. They are
all appointments by the executive branch or by the courts
themselves. What does it take to have these judges removed if they
misbehave? In the case of the Supreme Court, it quite literally takes
an act of congress to remove a judge. (This is not a bad thing but it
is a high hurdle to cross when it has to be done.) From what I have
read, even if that judge is in prison, the law still considers
that they are a member of the court until congress acts to remove
them.
I live in the jurisdiction of the 9th Federal Circuit Court (which
is located in San Francisco.) This
court has been overturned more times than any other circuit
court. Does this fact suggest that maybe the judges appointed to this
court are not reading the law accurately? Is this an effect of the
region they are in? Is it a factor of their particular schooling?
Appointees are presumably all well experienced in matters of law and
members of their respective state bar associations in good
standing. So with that experience, how is it that they continue to
render decisions with which the higher court disagrees?
An impartial and honest judicial system is the cornerstone of our
society. If you can't trust the courts, you have no hope for
justice. Many people today feel that high paid attorneys are often
thwarting justice and causing the little guy who can't afford these
sorts of fees to lose out and be wronged by the courts. Whether or not
that is the case is not really at issue, here we are focusing on the
judges themselves.
Each judge reads and applies the law according to their own learning
and experience. In some respects, their view will be affected by their
personal beliefs. While a good judge will state most clearly that
their personal opinion doesn't enter the court room—justice is
supposed to be blind, after all—it is very hard to completely
remove one's own personal bias. Some judges are unwilling to even try
to remove their own biases and have no problem allowing personal
opinion to influence how they rule. Recall though that the
responsibility of a judge is not only applying the law but also
interpreting the law and many consider that their own views should be
taken into consideration during that process. Judges must hold to
ethical standards outlined in the
Code of Conduct for United States Judges but is
this interpretation of how to view their responsibilities to the law
at odds with that or simply a different perspective? To most, it
seems to be held as just another point of view, not harmful to the
overall system of jurisprudence. I'm not sure I agree.
If an administration willingly appoints judges who hold this point of
view regarding personal opinion, and appellate and district courts are
willing to do the same for Magistrates and bankruptcy judges, what are
the dangers? Can law be changed and transformed into something it was
never intended to be by a judge who simply believes it should be so?
Remember, through the courts and judicial councils, the judicial
branch largely polices itself. They overcome bias and potential for
corruption through requirements for consensus or at least majority
opinion, as with the Supreme Court. But if enough members of such
councils hold to this view of the use of personal opinion, is bias
allowed to prevail? Remember also that the structure of the federal
judiciary is largely defined by congress, not the constitution.
So I ask you, what damage can be done to the constitution through the
justice system? Why are cases involving the Bill of Rights even being
reviewed by the Supreme Court? Should not such things already be very
clear and the lower courts able to properly rule on these matters? I
hold that the judiciary is as much under attack as any other aspect of
the constitution. If the judiciary is willing to thwart the
constitution, then the constitution no longer matters and we are no
longer a free people. We as a nation have never really questioned the
integrity of federal judiciary because we have rarely been given a
reason to distrust it. Should that now change?
Returning now to the film, when the Nazis came to power, Janning
believed at first, for his part, that he could do more good by
remaining at his post and showing mercy where he was allowed to and
otherwise help those who might otherwise have no hope. He thought
himself basically an honest man who had tried to be loyal to his
country and also loyal to his office. It was his feeling that he
simply got caught up in the storm and merely made some poor choices in
how to react to that situation.
After Janning was sentenced, he asked to meet with the Chief Justice
in his cell. At the end of the conversation, Janning, who was
basically viewing Tracy's character almost as a Father Confessor and
while from the start of the trial was accepting of his role in the
matter and resigned to his fate was also looking for forgiveness, in a
way seeming to consider himself to be undeserving of his sentence.
Janning stated in what is really in my opinion the true climax of the
film, "Those people, those millions of people [referring to the
holocaust], I never knew it would to come to that. You must
believe it."
To this statement, Tracey, understanding that this man truly did not
grasp the nature of his error, replied softly but with
determination, calling him by name and declaring, "It came to
that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be
innocent." What a powerful proclamation that was!
When you consider the progressive agenda, does this statement scare
the hell out of you? It does me...
|