I'm fed up.
I retired from the practice of law last month after 39 years. I still have a "legal" brain and sensibilities. I've appeared before judges at every level from municipal court to the U.S. Supreme Court, so this is based upon my personal experience and observation. During that time, I have watched the deterioration of the bench at both the State and federal level, and it's not by accident.
There were always judges who were marginally competent (usually in rural areas where they were elected by votes in the hundreds and the GOBLN (Good Ol'Boy Legal Network - we used to describe it as "fighting the goblins", or "being hometowned") was in full swing). But, by and large, the judges were
experienced attorneys who took their role seriously and tried their best to be balanced
jurists. Even "conservative" judges (as it used to apply in the judiciary) were fair and predictable in their approaches.
The problem we have now, is that so many line judges are inexperienced (see Judge Aileen Cannon), or extremely ideologically bent (See Judges Aileen Cannon,
Matthew Kacsmaryk), and for the federal judiciary in particular, judges/Justices are chosen not for their legal acumen, but for ideological predictability (see, Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch and Thomas). This is particularly the result of
political manipulation of the appointment process. Since Ronald Reagan, the standards have been deliberately skewed to achieve particular results, and it shows.
That was obvious in
Bush v. Gore, which was
legally inexcusable, but even more apparent with the current SCOTUS cabal ("a secret political clique or faction"). The current treatment of the question of Presidential immunity demonstrates the problem, in spades. The Court had the opportunity to address this question in December, but ducked it. Had they taken it then, it would have kept the potential trial on track. I think I suggested, then, that this was a delay tactic.
The fact that they took the case
now, and
changed the issue before it, demonstrates the intention to delay
all of the trials as long as they can get away with.
"that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot." (Emphases mine)
I am thoroughly disgusted and am concerned that SCOTUS is irreparably corrupted.
I've expressed my view that Clarence Thomas was never qualified for the Supreme Court, but that was well before his utter corruption became public. Now, there is no excuse not to impeach him. But he is not alone. I am aware of the questionable financial behavior of many of the Justices (even Democratically-appointed ones, although those are far more limited).
But, the biggest problem today, and for the future of the country (and the impetus for this thread), is that they, and their counterparts all the way down the food chain, have been so corrupted by the political process of their appointment that they are
incapable of ruling based upon the law and the Constitution. Because they have lifetime appointments, and because they are beholden to, and protected by, their party, they are abusing their positions and destroying the greatest tradition of our heritage - the American
Common Law, enshrined in the Constitution. ("ARTICLE VII. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.")
