Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.  (Read 11373 times)

sjolley

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« on: December 31, 2002, 04:24:11 pm »

One state selection criteria that I haven’t seen much comment on yet is both Federal and State Supreme court judges.  These are people who are usually not elected and serve for life or a significant period of time.  And, in my life I have seen Judges undo some good laws and force states to adopt bad laws.  I would be very interested in the record of the judges who have jurisdiction over each of the 10 states under consideration and what their record on ruling with or against the constitution.  I have looked on the web, and maybe I just am not very good at this, but I can’t find anything I can access with this information. ???
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2002, 04:54:26 pm »

Excellent point. I have seen several instances where people went to a lot of effort to have an initiative passed that limited government in some way, only to have it overturned by this other branch of government. They are hardly impartial, disinterested bystanders.

In fact that makes me think you might get a handle on it by examining initiatives that have been passed and overturned, at least in those states that have it.

This may be more a short-term problem. I'll bet at any given time, a good percentage of these folks are nearing retirement. We need to have a freedom-loving governor (sounds almost like a contradiction in terms, doesn't it?) to control judicial appointments. Is that likely? Oh, well, I can dream.  ::)

Another thing would be to pass a law requiring judges to instruct juries correctly, and limiting the use of voir dire. They tried passing something like this via Initiative in South Dakota, but it failed. The analysis is very instructive. This will be a big job:

http://www.commonsensejustice.us/index.html#analysis

"Almost every county which voted above 21% for "A" was in the western ranching country of SD, one of the final areas in the country where a large portion of the population still questions -- to even a vestigial degree -- the authority of government to violate every single one of the Bill of Rights."

Something to think about when we choose our state. Wyoming might be a good bet for this.

The FIJA people live in Montana. Look at www.fija.org
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2003, 02:49:40 pm »

I had a business law professor in college who was a former federal judge in Alaska.  He made the statement, (from my  college notes, dated 1999) "It is advantageous to incorporate in Delaware due to the most favorable judicial system that exists there."
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2003, 06:46:33 pm »

That's just for incorporation. Sjolley is talking about a much broader subject, the tendencies of judges to overturn laws that aid freedom, or legislate from the bench in a way that harms freedom.
Logged

sjolley

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2003, 01:06:02 pm »

I was hoping that someone knew of a think tank, conservative, liberal, anything that has rated the judges in the states.  If this information was on the web, that would be great.  Then by looking at the think tank’s bias,   ;)  I could guess the chances of freedom being supported by judges in the target states.   :)

Since it takes a legislative super majority in most states to impeach judges, and most judges serve for 15 years to live, it could really slow the cause of freedom if we pick a state with judges who are anti-freedom.

I saw this happen while I lived in AZ.  The State Supreme court forced, though threat of contempt changes, the legislative to intact some very anti-freedom laws.   >:(  The legislature didn’t have the votes (2/3’s) to impeach the judges or they would have.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2003, 05:10:32 pm »

I haven't looked, but it's been my impression that it is very hard to get ratings of judges. They tend to fly under the radar, and don't say much in confirmation hearings and such.

Perhaps you could get a feel by looking at the decisions each state's Supreme Court has made in the last couple of years. Hard to convert that into anything like a quantitative ranking, but it might steer us away from a state with a really bad court.

Not sure where you'd find that, but the official state government sites might be where to start.

Why don't you give it a look?   :)
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5706
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2003, 07:53:09 pm »

You can get a rough sense of what the legal profession thinks of the different courts by doing Google searches.  For example, this was the first result I got by searching for "Montana supreme court"+conservative:
http://www.act60.org/jeffrenz.htm

Apparently the Montana Supreme Court is not so conservative!  But of course, you have to take each individual opinion with caution, try to get a sense of what's out there on a particular state's court system.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

sjolley

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2003, 09:16:46 pm »

Apparently the Montana Supreme Court is not so conservative!  But of course, you have to take each individual opinion with caution, try to get a sense of what's out there on a particular state's court system.

Yes, when I lived in MT the Supreme Court forced the start to have speed limits.  I coun't find a single resident who liked the idea.  Even the police I knew didn't like having to enforce what they thought was stupid. :o
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5706
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2003, 11:03:20 am »

Yeah, I did some more poking around and found that the Montana Supreme Court since 1991 has been very activist in a statist way, meddling with water rights and striking down tax limitation measures.  I couldn't find anything similar on the Wyoming Supreme Court; they seem to be fairly centrist.  They did force a kind of "Robin Hood" education spending formula on the state, but almost every state has done that by now.  These are the only two states I've searched about so far.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

anarchicluv

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 397
  • Semper Liber
    • Strike The Root
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2003, 07:45:04 pm »

This just in!  Wouldn't it be wonderful to get a Judge like Jim Gray to move with us to the Free State?  Anyone out there savvy enough to give it a shot?

Jeremy

Anti-Drug War Judge joins Libertarian Party!

Jim Gray, a Superior Court Judge in Orange California, has joined the Libertarian Party, and in doing so has become one of the party’s highest-ranking public officeholders. Gray has been an outspoken critic of our nation’s drug policies, and is the author of the recent book “Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed, and What We Can Do About It – a Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs.”

Gray made his decision to join shortly after reviewing the Libertarian Party’s Drug War Focus Strategic Plan, which focuses party efforts to end the Drug War at the federal level. “Drug Prohibition is the most critical issue facing the world today, and the LP is the only party addressing it,” said Gray. “I felt compelled to join.”

“Much of what I see as a Judge brings a tear to my eye,” Gray continued, in a phone conversation with LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger. “The drug war is destroying the fabric of society. We are ripping parents away from their children, who end up in forced adoption before the parents get out from the long mandatory minimums.

Judge Gray will be speaking at the California LP State Convention on Sunday, February 16. He is considering seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president. “I want to do everything I can do to stop the needless tragedy resulting from our misplaced drug policies,” said Gray.

Gray’s website is www.judgejimgray.com
Logged
If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.
~Henry David Thoreau

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2003, 09:43:03 am »

Quote
Gray made his decision to join shortly after reviewing the Libertarian Party’s Drug War Focus Strategic Plan, which focuses party efforts to end the Drug War at the federal level. “Drug Prohibition is the most critical issue facing the world today, and the LP is the only party addressing it,” said Gray. “I felt compelled to join.”
How Exciting!  It would be nice to see more judges come forward opposing the drug war.  Many judges who oppose the drug war have no choice but to support it in their capacity as judges, because of minimum- mandatory sentencing and restrictive uniform rules of procedure laws.  Other judges who face elections, recalls and such are cautious to appear too "radical" even if they disagree with the 'War on People'.
___
I'm glad you brought this thread back out of hiding, I had something to contribute :

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Jurisdicitions:

First
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico

Second
New York, Vermont, and Connecticut

Third
Delaware and Pennsylvania, New Jersey

Eighth
North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas.

Ninth
Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands.  

Tenth
Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.

This information on jurisdictions was obtained from the websites of each of the above courts.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2003, 10:44:07 am by exitus »
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5706
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2003, 10:27:44 am »

Woah, have they created a new circuit court then?  Formerly California, Oregon, and Washington were in the Ninth, making it an extremely liberal court.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5706
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2003, 10:29:20 am »

Yeah, the 9th is still intact, and still dominated by California liberals.  Bad news for Montana and Idaho.  Of the candidate states, Wyoming has by far the best circuit court placement.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2003, 10:37:38 am »

Woah, have they created a new circuit court then?  Formerly California, Oregon, and Washington were in the Ninth, making it an extremely liberal court.
Actually, there is some serious talk in Congress about creating a new court.  The ninth court is the most over-burdened and under-staffed. (especially since the Democrats are stalling and holding-up nominations).
For some strange reason, I accidentally deleted those states after reading the story about the new court that Congress is thinking about creating.  It is now corrected.

The Ninth circuit was that court responsible for that recent ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance be banned from public use because it mentions God.  Religious conservatives everywhere, but especially in that jurisdiction  are 'up in arms' and many are starting to re-think public schools in general.

Most of the justices on the Ninth Circuit are known for their liberal stance on everything, including drug use, unfortunately liberal out-of-control jury awards and liberal socialism too.

Here is an interesting news story that is really about the Ninth:
2002-01-15 : Idaho OKs Marijuana With Driving
« Last Edit: February 14, 2003, 10:55:21 am by exitus »
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Greggers69

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • For life and liberty!
Re:Judges - A selection criteria I haven't seen discussed.
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2003, 04:13:05 pm »

that's so everyone will be so loaded they can take away our firearms and rights.   And not everyone will care.  And most liberals smoke.   Greg
Logged
All is stake, and the little conviencys and comforts of life when in comptition with our Liberty, ought to be rejected, not with reluctance but with pleasure.

 George Mason
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up