James M. Redwine

federal judges

Get Out of the Gutter

by Leave a Comment

Lauren Windsor is a conservative Christian who is anti-abortion. That is what she told Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito on June 03, 2024 in statements she made to him at a private gathering of the Supreme Court Historical Society. We know she stands for these principles because she recorded herself saying so then released an edited version of her recording to the Rolling Stone magazine. Of course, she is an admitted, known liar, so who knows what she believes.

Windsor was attempting to sleazily trap Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts during private conversations. Windsor did not inform the justices she was recording them nor did she disclose her true purpose which was to embarrass the Court and maybe get the justices to recuse in cases she cared about.

It turned out neither Alito nor Roberts said anything of significance that might pressure them to avoid ruling on future cases. On the other hand, Windsor should be excommunicated from the Fourth Estate for shaming herself and her vocation.

Gentle Reader, if you have followed this column over its thirty-four years you know I have my issues with our Supreme Court. Just as you, I have never had the opportunity to vote for or against anyone on the Supreme Court. You may recall I have repeatedly written that all federal judges should be selected by the public, have strict term limits and be subject to the same type of judicial ethical boundaries as I as a judge have been for over forty years. I have no brief for an imperial court at any level. However, gutter-type tactics used to ensnare anyone, including judges, are debasing to our system of justice and an affront to journalism.

If one wants to know what a Supreme Court justice really thinks, read their numerous decisions! They are published each term of court and a matter of public record. Justice Alito has been on the Court since 2006 and Chief Justice Roberts has been on the Court since 2005. Each of them has signed on to countless decisions and has dissented in many others. If we want to know how they think, all we need to do is read the public record. There is no call for pulp fiction.

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.

 

Undermining the Courts

by Leave a Comment

At 3:30 am on Thursday, April 20, 2023 I was watching cable news anchor Alex Wagner of MSNBC, who was analyzing the controversy involving two conflicting federal court rulings concerning the abortion drug Mifepristone. Wagner pointed out the federal district judge in Texas had been appointed by President Donald Trump. Ms. Wagner did not refer to the federal district judge in the state of Washington having been appointed by President Barack Obama. Wagner opined that these diametrically opposed court holdings and the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempts to reconcile them, “Could undermine the legitimacy of the courts.”

Naturally, Gentle Reader, your first thought is what was I doing watching television at three thirty in the morning and why would I watch MSNBC at any time? As to why I was awake, hey, I’m frequently responding to urges I never had when life was new. As to why MSNBC, I watch the news with my finger on the remote so I can attempt to outmaneuver the commercials. MSNBC happened to have the court story on instead of some offer of products guaranteed to enhance weight loss and other things, so I listened in.

It was Wagner’s views on the court system, not any exposition of Mifepristone, that piqued my attention. She said on national TV what may be a sub rosa thought with many Americans, “Why should we have confidence in the independence and reliability of our federal judges?” Are federal judges acting as Socrates demanded or are they deciding cases politically? Does a federal judge’s ruling depend more on the facts and the law or the judge’s political views and those of the president who appointed them?

In his trial before the Athenian judges, Socrates admonished his judges, “To do justice, not make a present of it.” In other words, a judge’s duty is not to repay his or her appointing politician, but:

“To hear courteously; to answer wisely; to consider soberly; and to decide impartially.”

Americans have for over 200 years supported the right of judges to be a separate and independent branch of our government. However, in our current national environment, many decisions from, especially the U.S. Supreme court, but more and more frequently also from the lower federal courts due to wide-ranging injunctions from one-person federal district judgeships, are seen by many Americans as political pronouncements.

Virtually every national debate about federal judicial decisions begins with a reference to the politics of who appointed the judge or judges and the history of the judge’s political leanings. It may be difficult to recall, but before our current turbulent social environment seldom was it alleged that, as justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent to the abortion decision of Dobbs vs. Jackson, “Today the proclivities of individuals (Supreme Court Justices) rule.”

When even one third of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court publicly and in print accuse the other two thirds members of deciding cases for political reasons, it sounds an alarm about an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary is essential to maintaining our democracy. As long ago as 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville noted, “In America, practically every political question eventually becomes a judicial one.” De Tocqueville meant that Americans have confidence in the impartiality of our courts so they take their disputes to courts to be resolved.

It would be a shame if now de Tocqueville might have to conclude, “In America, practically every federal judicial question becomes a political one.” Perhaps next week, if I am still awake at 3:30 am, we might further address these volatile issues including some suggested remedies.

Our Two Branch Democracy

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

Pure democratic government involves direct selection of leaders by those who are led. The United States is two thirds of a democracy. The Executive Branch is elected by popular vote every four years. The House of Representatives of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote every two years. The Senatorial part of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote in staggered parts over six years. The Executive and Legislative Branches then select all members of the federal judiciary. The American public has no direct input in the selection of the Judicial Branch.

Federal judges receive life-time appointments subject only to their own choice or, extremely rarely, impeachment. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (in 1805) was the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have articles of impeachment brought against him; he was acquitted and continued on the court. Fifteen lower federal court judges have been impeached in American history. Eight were convicted and removed from the court. Four were acquitted and three resigned. We currently have about 1,800 federal judges including 9 Supreme Court justices.

The Judicial Branch of our government is in some ways the most powerful and in every way the least democratic branch. While we have only one President, the President may serve a maximum of eight years and must be elected by popular vote. Of course, the Electoral College is the mechanism we use, but popular vote by the electorate is still the gold standard. That is, we have the right to help choose our Executives. Not so our federal judges.

In like manner, we have the right to help choose our state’s Congress people and our state’s two senators. And while there are no term limits for the Legislative Branch, if we choose, we can vote them out. Not so our federal judges.

The historical reasons for how our ideal form of a Three Equal Branch democracy became two equal branches with the Judicial Branch being outside the control of the citizens are complex and, in many ways, convoluted. For the purposes of this column, I ask for a suspension of your legitimate questions about the etiology of how we got to our current non-democratic system. I respectfully recommend an examination of the most famous and momentous U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1cranch) 137 (1803). It was the original wrongly decided case that the highly political Chief Justice John Marshall used to outfox his bitter political opponent, President Thomas Jefferson, and usurp out of whole cloth for the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to determine if an act or law was constitutional. That was the beginning of how the federal courts have placed themselves beyond the reach of the citizens and slowly but inexorably created a government that, I submit, James Madison and the other Founders would not recognize. The ideal of a living democracy based on direct citizen involvement in the selection of each of three separate and equal branches of self-government has evolved into bicameral branches of Executives and Legislators who then choose the Judicial Branch.

Most experts now believe it would take an amendment to Article III of our Constitution to return to the purity of the Founders’ vision. If so, that painful and arduous process would be preferable to the alternatives.

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.

The Right To Matter

by Leave a Comment

From www.270towin.com

It was not the British Parliament’s tax on tea that caused the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773; it was the denial of the Colonists’ right to be represented in Parliament.

It is not the sexual part of unwanted sex that matters to the Me Too Movement, we Homo sapiens have spent the last 200 to 300 thousand years engaging in sex; it is the “unwanted” factor that is objectionable.

And when our Founders were barely able to cobble together our Republic it was not the fact that some of the Thirteen Colonies had much greater populations than others or much greater wealth than others that almost caused the United States to be simply thirteen entirely separate entities; it was the fear by both the more populous and less populous colonies that their voices would not sufficiently matter.

There were many reasons why and how our constitutional democracy survived colliding circumstances, desires and egos but two of the most significant compromises were the Proportional Representative construct and the Electoral College.

Large states accepted the compromise that in the Senate each state would have two and only two Senators because their proportional influence was recognized by having the number of Congressional Representatives determined by population. Smaller states accepted this arrangement in like manner because they would have an equal voice in at least one of the two Congressional bodies, the Senate, even though they would have fewer Congresspersons than larger states.

Then there is the imaginative system of the Electoral College. The Electoral College determines who will be the Executive Branch leaders, the President and Vice President, via a method similar to the proportional representative system. And because the President has the authority to nominate all federal judges, whoever has influence over the election of the President has an indirect voice in the makeup of the third branch of our federal government, the Judicial Branch. Therefore, the Electoral College, whose only job is to meet every four years and vote for the Chief Executive and the Vice President, has some influence over two of the three Branches of our government. Of course, the Executive Branch contains the armed forces, the F.B.I., the D.E.A., etc., etc., etc. And these countless agencies assert immense power over all of us. We certainly want our opinions to matter when it comes to all those aspects of our government.

The number of Electors of the Electoral College is determined by totaling the number of Congressional Representatives each state has and each state’s two senators. The number of Congressional Representatives is derived from each state’s population. So, very similar to the general system of representative/proportional government, where all states have two and only two senators but have differing numbers of Congresspersons based on population, the Electoral College is based on every state having some Electors but more populous states having more Electors than less populous states.

Currently there are 538 members of the Electoral College based on 100 Senators and 438 Congressional Representatives. For example, Indiana has 2 Senators and 9 Congresspersons for a total of 11 Electors and Oklahoma has 2 Senators and 5 Congresspersons for a total of 7 Electors. On the other hand, California has 2 Senators and 53 Congresspersons for a total of 55 Electors. Indiana’s sister state of Illinois has 20 Electors, almost twice as many as Indiana, and Oklahoma’s sister state of Texas has 38, over five times as many as Oklahoma. The District of Columbia has no Senators but does have 3 Electors based on the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution. Three is the least number of Electors of any state. The U.S. Territories do not receive any Electors.

Whichever candidate receives 270 Electoral votes, the current majority of Electors, is elected President. Sometimes the candidate who receives the most popular votes does not receive a majority of the Electoral votes. This always reignites a debate to eliminate the Electoral College and go to a pure one person/one vote system. Such was the case in 2016 when the Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton received 3,000,000 more popular votes than the Republican nominee Donald Trump, but Trump received 304 Electoral votes, which was 77 more than Clinton received. Had this outcome been inverted I suggest the pro/anti-Electoral College debate would have also been inverted.

There certainly are legitimate arguments for modifying or even eliminating the Electoral College system even though the College has helped to assuage the constant yin and yang of large states versus small ones. As for me, having spent most of my life, so far, in either Oklahoma or Indiana, I do not wish to rely upon the tender mercies of the few lumbering giant states with huge populations of voters that might deign to turn a deaf ear to my concerns and those of the other residents of the numerous less populous states.