Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him.

You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's. . .

You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.
—Deuteronomy 1:16-17; 16:19

The judges have in fact become superior not only to the Legislature but to the Constitution itself, since the Constitution is what the judges say it is.
—Louis B. Boudin, Government by Judiciary (1932)

Most people familiar with the structure of the United States federal government agree that a major building block in its foundation is the "separation of powers" doctrine. Designing each branch (the judicial, executive and judicial) to be autonomous, the wise drafters of the Constitution included essential checks and balances to keep each other honest and responsible to the citizens. In theory, the three branches will not all go crazy at the same time.and gang up on the people.

One of the means that the founding fathers provided to ensure that the judicial branch would remain free of undue influence from the other two is found in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior . . ."

Unlike the prescriptions that the Constitution provides for the frequency of electing members to the other branches, the statement above is the only one concerning judges' terms of office. In other words, so long as federal judges "behave" themselves, they may hold their positions for life.

Yet, what constitutes "good behavior" remains to be seen, while bad behavior has been defined so narrowly that no judge in his right mind, crooked or not, would fall into it. This definition contained in the doctrine of judicial immunity, which has grown up to further "protect the court's independence." Coupled with life tenure, judicial immunity virtually gives them a license to steal. As defined by the U.S. supreme1 Court itself, in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 US 349, judicial immunity is: ...the immunity of a judge from civil liability for any acts performed in the judge's official capacity. The immunity is absolute provided only that the judge is acting within his or her jurisdiction. The scope of the judge's jurisdiction must be construed broadly to protect the court's independence; therefore, the judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action taken was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of the judge's authority; rather, the judge will be subject to liability only when the action taken was in clear absence of all jurisdiction. What do YOU think?

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a truism with far-reaching applications including certainly the absolute immunity which the U.S. courts system has granted itself.

Currently, actions alleging judicial misconduct must be brought before an erring judge's fellows, who are, of course, well schooled in the judicial-immunity doctrine (and its value to their own careers). Little relief can be expected from that approach.

"Do not enter; rights being given."
—sign outside municipal courtroom in Los Angeles.

As a result, citizens with grievances are starting to band together. One group in California has drafted a Judicial Reform Act that would create a board of investigation to hear complaints of judicial misconduct. It would draw its members from outside the judiciary. Doubtless similar groups exist elsewhere.

Another recent attempt at a cure for the national epidemic of judicial abuses has been the common-law court movement. These courts claim their authority from the unwritten tradition of American and English courts, which stretches back more than 1,000 years and underlies the Constitution and all the laws that flow from it. Reportedly, a U.S. court in the 10th district has upheld at least one decision of such a common-law court, but the mass media have sensationalized findings of some of the others to discredit them and the movement in general. Naturally, there may have been some actual errors and excesses as frustrated citizens learn to administer justice after generations of "letting George do it."

Nevertheless, the underlying principle is sound: The people remain the ultimate repository of civil authority. When they witness the "long train of abuses" streaming from the judiciary some of them will take action. The rise of these courts proves that the love of justice and freedom still burns in some corners of America.

Yet, for every activist, there are thousands of "sheeple" who are not yet even awake or aware of the problem.

We encourage our readers to share with us articles, news accounts and other accurate information which compliment the "12 Good Reasons". Submit your articles or links here. We welcome your comments.

What can you do about it? The Time Is Now Institute is part of the solution. We invite you to a Consultation to develop a personal solution. Be sure to read all 12 Good Reasons.

Back to the 12 Good Reasons page.

Back to The Time Is Now Institute homepage.