The judicial system increases its own power everyday. From ruling that Hate Crimes (subjectively ruling that motive for already established crimes is backed by hatred or disdain, and objectively having no difference, i.e. harassment is a simple enough crime on the street but if the perpetrated moves his/her location or makes racist, sexist, or other certain types of remarks it is somehow transformed to a hate crime, see: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/hate-crime-act.html) to broadening its own powers the include the ability to bypass the existing court structure and invalidate any and all Executive and Congressional acts, even to the point of declaring themselves the sole interpreter of our Constitution. In essence the judiciary has given themselves the power to decide what is really law and what laws they disapprove of (despite Americans routinely opposing their decisions and despite congressmen, the President, and Governors from both sides of the fence letting them know they are acting inappropriately. What seems to be the most fascinating twist is that in order to try a judge for direct and clear violations of civil and federal law, all a judge has to claim is immunity and all charges will be dropped, regardless of the gross incompetence or outright slander/libel, made by the judge even in the course of duty. They enjoy complete and total immunity no matter how despicable their actions. The idea is for a consistent judicial system not bogged down by “frivolous” lawsuits. While this may have been a necessity in the earlier days of our nation, it is now an antiquated relic that disproportionately distributes both power and wealth tho those rare few that have the connections. It, like sovereign immunity serves no purpose and indeed gives us the”separate but ‘equal idea.
Proponents argue that judges will always be in fear of suit and thus paralyzed in their duties. I counter with the simple fact that judges, attorneys, pharmacists, and doctors and all those we place in positions of trust MUST be held at least as accountable to us as they expect us to give them. If judges are unwilling to stand behind their judgments, then how do we know we can trust them in return?
The Valeyard 