THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD

7/12/2006

Judges Running Scared?

By Carrie K. Hutchens

I just read where a bill has been introduced to further protect state and federal judges. How come? What are they afraid of? That the public and other branches of the government might start holding them "accountable"?

Look at this, "...

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5343

To protect State and Federal judges by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 10, 2006 Mr. GOHMERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To protect State and Federal judges by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ..." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5343.IH: 

My first question would be to inquire about this "legal authority" business. Who decides what this actually means? The legislature or the judges themselves? After all, we have Judge George Greer down in Florida allegedly making comments that the legislature isn't qualified to make end of life decisions. (Wonder who he thinks makes the laws he is suppose to be ruling by?) Does this also mean that the legislature isn't capable of deciding what "legal authority" is either? And, if there is question, who will be the judge to judge the judge's legal authority?

There are enough laws in place to protect the judges, prosecutors and attorney generals. When will it be the citizen's turn to be truly protected against the out-of-control system? A system that has left too many citizens helpless and with no where to turn for help in standing up to the wrongs. A system that pretends with it's legal aid/public defender programs that don't have a chance in keeping up with all the need. A system where a prosecutor can refuse a rightful case and he doesn't even have to explain why, unless or until it is brought up at election time. A system where a judge can sit there with a straight face and say he can render a fair and impartial judgment in spite of the fact he has a conflict of interest and a conflict of personality with the defendant and/or respondent.

Has anyone besides me found it odd that the judge him/herself decides whether to recluse him/herself or not, when challenged as to bias and/or conflict? Kind of like trusting the fox to watch the chickens just because he says he can be trusted not to eat them.

It's difficult enough to get a chance to show a judge might have broken his oath and acted/ruled inappropriately, so we need to make it even more difficult to hold them accountable? Or is that it? Is this all about giving the judges free reign to rule how they want whenever they want with no fear of accountability to anyone ever? Is that what they are trying to achieve before the government and legislature has a chance to step in and start clipping their out-of-control rulings?

The public needs to wonder who feels there is a need for a new immunity bill. Are the judges running scared? If so... why? We really do have a right to know. We are the people they swear to serve. Let's hold them to their oath. Let's hold them to accountability.