Thank you (and the sponsors of such legislation). Nothing in or about our Constitution gives federal judges “lifetime appointments.” Article III and The Federalist No. 78 emphasized that judges may hold their offices only during good behavior. Federal law and our Constitution establish how to distinguish good judicial behavior from bad judicial behavior. When judges knowingly violate rules of evidence or procedure or federal statutes, they necessarily knowingly violate our Constitution. They should be removed for such misconduct. The people have the right under the First Amendment to seek their removal. And many provisions of our Constitution give us the power to vote for or against any elected official who bears responsibility for appointing or not removing a judge who knowingly violates our Constitution. One way to prove judges are knowingly violating our Constitution is to compare what they write (or agree with) in different opinions.
Federal judges hiding their responsibility for their decisions is clearly contrary to the Constitution. SCOTUS opinions justifying the president’s power to appoint and remove officers (and regarding judges, the power of senators to approve or deny appointments and the power of senators and representatives to help remove judges) is justified by the power of the people to vote for or against elected officials because of the conduct of such appointees, including judges
There is a "far-right" culture in the US that only respects its control over wealth and income. Everything/Everyone else is "the other"...the outcasts. This sub-culture is now worshipping its own navel.
Every purported originalist (and all of us) should support such legislation.
Alexander Hamilton (a lawyer) in The Federalist No. 78 emphasized that judges are (and must act as) “servant[s]” or “representative[s]” of “the people.” Imposing the “standard of good behavior” on judges was meant to be an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of [such] representative[s]” and “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” by judges.
Hamilton went on to emphasize a crucial truth about judicial review (of the conduct of legislative or executive branch officials). It is a function of the sovereignty of the people over all public servants, including judges. Judicial review does not "suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges [(and all other public servants) must] be governed by the latter rather than the former."
Even earlier, Hamilton in The Federalist No. 70 emphasized that “[t]he two greatest securities” that “the people” have “for the faithful exercise of any delegated power” (and the only power that any federal employee may exercise is power that was delegated by the people) are “the restraints” imposed by fear “of public opinion” and the public’s “opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness [official] misconduct” to facilitate the “removal from office” or even “punishment” of any federal official.
Even in 1774, the Continental Congress (comprising many attorneys) emphasized that “freedom of the press” was among Americans’ “great rights” because it served the “advancement of truth” and “diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government,” including so that “oppressive officers” can be “shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting [public] affairs.” Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697, 717 (1931); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940) (substituting “ashamed” for “shamed”).
Even more recently, SCOTUS emphasized that “the law” (including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) “gives judges as persons, or courts as institutions” absolutely “no greater immunity from” our “criticism” (or our Constitution) “than other persons or institutions.” Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) (cleaned up). Our “speech cannot be punished” merely “to protect the court as a mystical entity” or “judges as individuals or as anointed priests set apart from the community and spared the criticism to which” all “other public servants are exposed.” Id. at 842.
Much more recently, SCOTUS emphasized that “the freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread” of “truth” about public affairs. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 584 (2023) (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, Holmes, JJ., concurring)). “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” (as judges often do) with the “marketplace of ideas” about whether judicial conduct is constitutional or criminal. Id. at 584-585 (quoting West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)).
“All manner of speech” (including in court proceedings) enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” Elenis at 587. “[T]he First Amendment’s protections belong” to “all, including” attorneys “whose motives” judges consider “misinformed or offensive.” Id. at 595. “[T]he First Amendment protects” each person’s “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes judges “anguish” or “incalculable grief.” Id. at 571-572.
Thank you (and the sponsors of such legislation). Nothing in or about our Constitution gives federal judges “lifetime appointments.” Article III and The Federalist No. 78 emphasized that judges may hold their offices only during good behavior. Federal law and our Constitution establish how to distinguish good judicial behavior from bad judicial behavior. When judges knowingly violate rules of evidence or procedure or federal statutes, they necessarily knowingly violate our Constitution. They should be removed for such misconduct. The people have the right under the First Amendment to seek their removal. And many provisions of our Constitution give us the power to vote for or against any elected official who bears responsibility for appointing or not removing a judge who knowingly violates our Constitution. One way to prove judges are knowingly violating our Constitution is to compare what they write (or agree with) in different opinions.
Federal judges hiding their responsibility for their decisions is clearly contrary to the Constitution. SCOTUS opinions justifying the president’s power to appoint and remove officers (and regarding judges, the power of senators to approve or deny appointments and the power of senators and representatives to help remove judges) is justified by the power of the people to vote for or against elected officials because of the conduct of such appointees, including judges
There is a "far-right" culture in the US that only respects its control over wealth and income. Everything/Everyone else is "the other"...the outcasts. This sub-culture is now worshipping its own navel.
Every purported originalist (and all of us) should support such legislation.
Alexander Hamilton (a lawyer) in The Federalist No. 78 emphasized that judges are (and must act as) “servant[s]” or “representative[s]” of “the people.” Imposing the “standard of good behavior” on judges was meant to be an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of [such] representative[s]” and “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” by judges.
Hamilton went on to emphasize a crucial truth about judicial review (of the conduct of legislative or executive branch officials). It is a function of the sovereignty of the people over all public servants, including judges. Judicial review does not "suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges [(and all other public servants) must] be governed by the latter rather than the former."
Even earlier, Hamilton in The Federalist No. 70 emphasized that “[t]he two greatest securities” that “the people” have “for the faithful exercise of any delegated power” (and the only power that any federal employee may exercise is power that was delegated by the people) are “the restraints” imposed by fear “of public opinion” and the public’s “opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness [official] misconduct” to facilitate the “removal from office” or even “punishment” of any federal official.
Even in 1774, the Continental Congress (comprising many attorneys) emphasized that “freedom of the press” was among Americans’ “great rights” because it served the “advancement of truth” and “diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government,” including so that “oppressive officers” can be “shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting [public] affairs.” Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697, 717 (1931); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940) (substituting “ashamed” for “shamed”).
Even more recently, SCOTUS emphasized that “the law” (including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) “gives judges as persons, or courts as institutions” absolutely “no greater immunity from” our “criticism” (or our Constitution) “than other persons or institutions.” Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) (cleaned up). Our “speech cannot be punished” merely “to protect the court as a mystical entity” or “judges as individuals or as anointed priests set apart from the community and spared the criticism to which” all “other public servants are exposed.” Id. at 842.
Much more recently, SCOTUS emphasized that “the freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread” of “truth” about public affairs. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 584 (2023) (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, Holmes, JJ., concurring)). “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” (as judges often do) with the “marketplace of ideas” about whether judicial conduct is constitutional or criminal. Id. at 584-585 (quoting West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)).
“All manner of speech” (including in court proceedings) enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” Elenis at 587. “[T]he First Amendment’s protections belong” to “all, including” attorneys “whose motives” judges consider “misinformed or offensive.” Id. at 595. “[T]he First Amendment protects” each person’s “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes judges “anguish” or “incalculable grief.” Id. at 571-572.