James M. Redwine

Impeachment

Sound And Fury

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

William Shakespeare could have been describing Congress instead of life when he wrote:

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5)

The U.S. Congress has assumed for itself the role of ethics advisor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress is so upset about recent Court decisions it is demanding that the Court adopt a binding code of judicial conduct (the U.S. Supreme Court has none now). Congress as the arbiter of Court morality brings forth an analogy of Jezebel as the paragon of Babylon.

It is not that the Supreme Court justices have not often acted unethically, it is just not a rational solution to turn to Congress for our relief. Real and permanent reform will not come from Congressional hearings and legislation nor does human nature suggest it will come from within the Court regardless of any ethical rules.

On December 8, 2022 in a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet a representative of the bipartisan Project on Government Oversight testified:

“Every justice who has served in the last decade has done something that has raised questions about propriety and impartiality.”

 Then documented cases of unethical conduct by individual Supreme Court justices were submitted. It did not matter whether it was a darling of the left such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor or a hero of the right such as Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas, all had been found wanting. Of course, had anyone investigated the members of Congress during the past decade the results would have been similar.

Both Congressional members and members of the Supreme Court seem to become surprisingly wealthy on their rather mundane salaries. Perhaps they are all just frugal. Or maybe it is just my envy of such “good luck” as Sonia Sotomayor had in earning three million dollars on her book when I, as a writer myself, am still selling out of my car’s trunk one book at a time instead of having my old court staff hawking them or me. Also, Peg and I would most likely have enjoyed a cruise on Clarence Thomas’ friend’s yacht.

However, the real issue is not are the justices being unethical, of course they sometimes are; most humans are at least sometimes. It is only sin if seen through the eyes of someone who disagrees with a justice’s judicial philosophy. Ginsburg was a saint and Ketanji Jackson is becoming one as far as liberals are concerned. Scalia was a contemporary John Marshall and Samuel Alito has an ermine robe in the eyes of conservatives, But Gentle Reader, they are just as you and I, human and opinionated; that is why they were nominated and confirmed by politicians.

 If you have read several of the more than 1,000 columns I have written and published since 1990, you may recall I have often called for Court reform. If Congress truly wishes to “do good”, they should amend our Constitution and devise a system of democratically electing federal judges who do not have life-tenure. Please, members of Congress, stop posturing from the right and left and legislate for the good of all of us. After all, we finally ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. Our 28th Amendment to the Constitution might help preserve our democracy instead of just shouting fire while we watch the Supreme Court burn.

Insomnia Revisited

by Leave a Comment

If you, as I, have trouble sleeping, this column should help. You may have read last week’s offering concerning the politicization of our federal courts. As warned in that article, today’s Gavel Gamut will further delve into MSNBC Alex Wagner’s suggestion that the legitimacy of America’s federal courts may be undermined by politics. If so, judicial independence and citizen confidence in our Judicial Branch may suffer.

Article III of the United States Constitution provides Justices of the Supreme Court and any lower federal court judges will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The right for a citizen to vote for the President and the two senators from the citizen’s state of residence is the total opportunity Americans have to help select an entire branch of our three-branch government. Only the President and the one hundred senators have the constitutional right and opportunity to help select all federal judges. There are federal magistrates and specialty federal judges, such as bankruptcy referees, that are selected by either the sitting judges or special commissions. There are approximately 250,000,000 American citizens eighteen and over (eligible voters) who are cut out of all these selection procedures. So the power to select an entire branch of our government resides in 101 individuals and a few committees.

Further, when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts of Appeal and the District Courts, all these judges have life-time tenure and can only be removed involuntarily by impeachment. There are currently about 1,731 federal judges as appointed by a president. Since our nation’s founding in 1789, articles of impeachment have been brought against 15 federal judges of whom 8 were convicted. Therefore, the American people, except for a president and 100 senators, have no direct say in selecting or removing our federal judges who serve for life. Yet our Executive and Legislative branches are all subject to the will of the people and presidents may only serve 8 years. Our senators and congresspeople serve either 6 or 2-year terms and are subject to periodic popular, partisan elections.

Our system of federal judicial selection eliminates the populace from any control over an entire branch of our separate and equal three branch democracy. If there ever was justification for this extremely parochial and extremely partisan selection procedure for selecting federal judges, it has outlived its purposes. One hundred and one Americans should not have the power to exclude 250 million of their fellow citizens from helping to configure an entire branch of a democratic government.

A constitutional amendment to Article III may be needed if we are to ensure citizens have the option for input into selecting the extremely powerful federal judges who, already according to virtually every political pundit, legal theorist and media commentator, are the product of a shameful partisan vetting. But we have amended our Constitution 27 times for such things as the right to vote for Blacks and women, so we can do it for such an important right as selecting federal judges. Almost every federal judge whose decisions concern such general issues as guns, abortion, immigration, the environment, national defense, education, health care, public entitlements, infrastructure, interstate commerce, criminal justice, voting rights and water rights among many others, when the judge’s identity becomes public during a case, the judge’s name and his/her appointing president is mentioned. Every federal judge in every controversial case is identified as a Trump appointment, a Biden appointment, an Obama appointment or even a Bush appointment. Often the media will even identify the federal judge involved in a contentious case as a “Trump or Biden, etc.” judge. America no longer labors under a belief that federal judges are not the product of a highly partisan process. Therefore, why eliminate almost all Americans from such a transparent power struggle?

I suggest we amend the Constitution to establish a 10-year one-time term for all federal judges. Our existing federal judges who have already served 10 years would remain until the nearest federal election cycle which would not exceed 2 more years. We should pension out all sitting and future judges with their full salaries and benefits in return for them leaving the branch. Such pensions would cost us far less than we have spent in Ukraine or Iraq and we would be buying something of great value, the right to control our own judicial branch.

If we do not address our growing national internecine warfare over our highly political federal judicial selection process, we risk becoming like those countries where the people lose all confidence in the judicial process over which they have no control or even influence.

 

Judicial Proclivities

by Leave a Comment

Three of the United States Supreme Court’s own members Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor warn us the Court has appointed itself, instead of Congress or the EPA, the decision maker on climate policy. An outcome the three dissenters found frightening. See the dissenting opinion of Kagan as joined by Breyer and Sotomayor in West Virginia v. EPA decided June 30, 2022. What they meant was that the unelected Supreme Court installed the Judicial Branch as the policy maker for an issue, management of the environment, that should be within the Legislative Branch that is subject to democratic control, as the Court is not.

Most of us are unable to see the irony in our own actions. The same is true of the Supreme Court. The six-member majority of the Court couched its decision in terms of preserving policy making in Congress as opposed to unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency. But, according to the Dissent, what the Court did was simply replace the EPA with the Court as the ultimate decision maker on the broad, critical issues of environmental management.

In the similarly ironical decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health handed down 24 June 2022, the same majority set the U.S. Supreme Court up as the final policy maker on the volatile issue of abortion by deciding Roe v. Wade must be overturned and each state should decide the issue.

The same three dissenting justices warned in Dobbs that:

“The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed. Stare decisis, this Court has often said, contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that decisions are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals. Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law.”

It is not the substance of either the EPA case or the abortion case that is our concern in today’s column. Those emotional issues of global warming and human reproduction are just too volatile and complicated to be adequately discussed in one short column. Instead, what I am struck by is the obtuseness of nine unelected, life-tenured people who arrogate themselves as final arbiters of issues so vital to the lives of 330 million Americans.  Perhaps the Supreme Court has finally brought in to focus that the justices are merely politicians on a micro scale. What I wish to discuss is how we might retain our three equal branches of government through a macro democratic process.

Does any rational observer of the Court deny the justices are simply politicians who wear black dresses and pretend to be apolitical? The justices are not to blame. If you, Gentle Reader, or I were placed by Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation on the Court, we would take our prejudices and “proclivities” with us. The problem lies not with the members of the Court but with the undemocratic way they are selected coupled with their life-time tenure. It is our Court and our Constitution and we should change both.

We have amended our Constitution 27 times. We should do so again. I suggest that the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal judges be elected in a non-partisan election for one 10-year term. Once their term is honorably served, we should pay them their full salary for life and they should never serve as a judge again. The impeachment process should remain an option in case we make a mistake.

In summary, federal judges are no better or no worse than the rest of us. They are human, they have “proclivities”, they are politicians. We should drop the façade of “philosopher kings” and have our federal judges recognized as a full-fledged branch of our democracy as selected via a democratic process.

A Delicate Balance

by Leave a Comment

Five-foot, four inch tall “Little Jimmy”, James Madison, Jr. (1751-1836), applied his gigantic intellect to melding the Natural Law theory of John Locke (1632-1704) and the Separation of Powers theory of Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) into the Constitution of the United States. Locke and Montesquieu postulated that all things being equal no person should harm another in his/her life, liberty, health or possessions. They, along with Madison, also believed that every person who has power is apt to abuse it. Therefore, governments are necessary to keep individual power in check but the power of government must also be kept in check.

According to Edgar Bodenheimer (1908-1991) in his treatise on jurisprudence:

“The basic idea of the American Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights is the recognition of the natural and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, as conceived by Locke, while the main body of the United States Constitution is a practical application of Montesquieu’s doctrine of separation of powers. The connection between these two doctrines in the American government is made by the theory of judicial review. The United States Supreme Court has held that, in order to guarantee the enforcement of natural rights, the power to make laws must be separated not only from the power to execute laws, but also from the power to review laws with their regard to their conformity with higher principles, as recognized by the United States Constitution. Thus, in the United States the courts, and especially the United States Supreme Court, have assumed guardianship over natural law.”

See Bodenheimer, Jurisprudence at p. 146

This separation of powers has served America well since 1789. As is to be expected in matters as complex as government and politics the powers of the three branches have each waxed and waned from time to time. However, we have always managed to keep our democracy by remaining moored to the rock upon which it was founded. Just as our founders recognized that individuals and governments will abuse power unless checked, they also recognized the danger and guarded against any of the three branches having unfettered power. The wisdom of Madison, et. al., is once again being tested. Has the Executive Branch gone outside its traces and incited violence against the Legislative Branch? Has the Legislative Branch blurred the boundaries that should keep all three branches separate by both charging an impeachment and then filling the role of the Judicial Branch by having one of its own members serve as the presiding officer at the trial? And, has the Judicial Branch been marginalized because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will not be serving as the neutral and detached trial judge as designed by our Founders.

For as Bodenheimer points out, “Any abuse of its power by the legislature should be curbed by the Judiciary Branch of the government, to which falls the duty of declaring void all statutes which are repugnant to the Constitution.” See Bodenheimer, Jurisprudence, at page 148. Perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the Supreme Court are anticipating being confronted with such an issue later.

The crimes that were committed on January 06, 2021 are being investigated and several alleged perpetrators have already been identified and charged. Numerous others will and should be. America’s normal criminal justice system can fairly and efficiently provide due process to those involved. If Donald Trump committed any state or federal crimes either on or before January 06, 2021 he can be prosecuted separately from the impeachment. And if a pardon is considered it would cover only federal offenses.

In our current test of our charter’s application, the Legislative Branch has filed an article impeaching the head of the Executive Branch, former President Donald Trump. It is alleged he engaged in:

“[H]igh crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States” on January 06, 2021 and for in the months preceding January 06, 2021 repeatedly issuing false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the America people or certified by State or Federal officials.

The Article of Impeachment was returned against President Donald Trump on January 13, 2021 while he was still the acting President. On January 25, 2021 after Donald Trump’s term had ended, the Article of Impeachment was sent to the Senate for trial. The Senate has set the trial to begin February 09, 2021 with Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat from Vermont, to preside and the senators to serve as jurors.

Article I, Section Three, of the U.S. Constitution provides that in the trial of the President of the United States the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. For reasons not yet fully explained, Chief Justice John Roberts will not be involved, so only two of our three equal branches of government will be embroiled in this matter of grave national concern. It is suggested that this is because Donald Trump is no longer President. However, that does not take into consideration the bed rock reason why the Founders made it mandatory for the Judicial Branch to be involved.

The impact of this omission upon public confidence in the fairness of the process is worthy of consideration. After all, it is not Donald Trump’s fate that is most important, but the country’s faith in the process that determines that fate. However, this faith might be shaken by a trial where the role of a “neutral and detached magistrate” is filled by a member of the body that both files and prosecutes the charge. Symbolism is important and a level scales of justice is one of our nation’s most potent and delicately balanced symbols.

Attenuation

by Leave a Comment

From The Ford Library Museum Website

The season of our discontent is set to begin February 08, 2021. Soon we will be forced to talk to our spouses again and eat an actual meal instead of gobble chicken wings during commercials or at half-times. I can feel the ennui closing in. ♫ It is a long, long time from February to September ♫ when football season returns. It is not that I have no interest in other sports, but other than the Olympic downhill ski race and the baseball World Series I just do not want to watch them on television. On the other hand, I will gladly spend four hours watching Goadie Bowl Tech and Reyfert Hogart Junior College drop passes and fumble kick-offs. Such pursuits as yard work and household chores quickly fade in the afterglow of a football game. Ah well, perhaps it will give me an opportunity to ask Peg what she has been doing since September 2020. Also, I might give some thought to such things as our battle with ’Ole 19 and our political malaise.

Perhaps I can combine my concerns about the end of the football season, the Corona Virus and such political madness as the January 06, 2021 assault on our Capitol including its impending impeachment imbroglio. After all, President Gerald Ford was the hero or villain, choose one, of the President Richard Nixon impeachment controversy and President Lyndon Johnson often alleged Ford’s decisions were affected by Ford’s having played too much football without a helmet. Gerald Ford played center on the University of Michigan football team. Ford graduated from college in 1935, an era when leather helmets were in vogue. For safety reasons leather has been gradually replaced with the rock-hard plastic we now use. Hello, spearing or targeting penalties and TIB’s (traumatic brain injuries). However, from an esthetic viewpoint, the hard plastic provides a better surface for team logos and sticker awards for hard hits.

Football and politics do have some similarities, and when it comes to dealing with misdeeds in either, the legal concept of attenuation is relevant. With football a hard hit with his helmet by one player against the head of another player can be analyzed by re-tracing backwards from the hit. While not even the player himself, or now perhaps herself too, may know for sure if he intended permanent harm, the referees and the re-play booth can carefully review and discuss the event. This may disclose guilt or innocence of the player but is he the only one to blame?

The fanatics who cheer on teams often call for the players to “fight’ or even “kill ’em”. One’s teammates may urge super aggression. Coaches spend months in conditioning drills and two-a-days pre-season practices explaining how starters push the limits while bench setters are more timid. And what about the player’s parents? Who is responsible for engendering mayhem instead of mercy?

The same type of analysis is an element of our criminal justice system. When there is a lynching, how far back the causal chain should punishment go? Is it just the one person who slips the noose over the victim’s neck? What about the on-lookers, the news media that fanned the flames, the leaders who gave rousing speeches, the sworn law officers who did not intervene and the rest of the community who acquiesced in silence either during or after the lynching? Perhaps an entire country might be responsible or even a silently accepting world. How do we decide whether we are applying appropriate punishment or simply burning a few witches to shoulder the blame for everyone?

Then, of course, we need to look at the dynamics of the attenuation itself. Who is making the choices about whom to burn? Are the decisions just or are they just decisions because the ones who execute them have the power to do so? And most importantly, are we a better society because of the choices or are we simply fomenting more targeting? Finally, where and how does it end?