Questions concerning Supreme Court nominations

A couple of days ago, someone anonymously posted four questions concerning my essay posted on Sept. 19, 2010. Today I attempt to answer two of those questions – these two:

“Why would you [if elected President of the US in 2012] ignore the Constitutional duties that the Senate has in Supreme Court selection? Wouldn’t the Court simply declare your choice and method unconstitutional?”

These questions were in response to one of my campaign promises listed in my contract*:

I will not nominate any person to the US Supreme Court who will not sign the following contract in advance: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will serve for only five years, after which I will resign. Failure to resign, I here and now freely stipulate, will constitute a violation of the ‘good behavior’ rule mandated by Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Such a violation would and should subject me to a well-deserved impeachment and removal from office.

Before I answer Anon’s questions, I wish to change the text highlighted above to read: “any position in the federal judiciary up to and including the US Supreme Court.”

My Reply to Anon’s Questions

The Constitution allows the President to nominate candidates to the federal judiciary, while placing no restrictions on how he is to make his decision. The Senate’s only constitutional duties, which would not be impinged by my contractual insistence, are summed up in these words: “…with the advice and consent of the Senate, he shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court [and all other federal judges as well]…” By the way, that “advice” doesn’t have to be sought or considered before POTUS nominates.

I could choose whomever I’d please but the Senate would still have the final say as to whether my nominee would be confirmed. Now the Senate might object (but so what?) to being forced to consider a nominee who could not serve more than five years, though that same nominee (after resigning) could be reconfirmed by a future Senate. That body should welcome the chance to reconfirm, after getting a chance to review how judges performed during their five-year terms. This, of course, assumes the next President would reappoint, but if he wouldn’t – that would be his prerogative.

Of course the Senate could refuse to consider any of my nominees. That could mean a great number of seats on the bench would remain vacant because (again) I wouldn’t nominate anyone who’d refuse to sign that contract. If that would be the will of the Senate, who would I be to argue? Of course, the Senate (by rejecting a provision in the contract under which I was elected) could be said to be rejecting the will of the people.

The Senate might decide to approve one of my nominees while adding this language to that written approval: “The 5-year-term-of-office contract signed by this nominee is, by decree of the Senate, held to be null and void.” That approach won’t work for two reasons:

·       The Senate does not have the power to nullify an oath. For instance, could the Senate nullify the oath taken by the President before he assumes office?

·       The Senate would, in effect, be telling the President the terms and conditions under which he must nominate. Since the Constitution doesn’t define these, how does the Senate get to? Besides, if the Senate wouldn’t like my nominee because he’d come to them for consideration while “shackled” to an oath, the Senate could simply refuse to confirm him.

A likelier scenario would occur if a duly-appointed judge decided not to resign after his five-year term expired. According to his contract/oath, he could be impeached and removed from office. But that would be up to Congress. If Congress decided not to impeach, they would be letting a scoundrel get away with violating his oath. But, again, that would be up to Congress, though I think that body would acquire a negative taint with this type of complicity.

The Supreme Court could declare my method unconstitutional, secure in the knowledge that Congress would not impeach them for this. However, SCOTUS would have to overlook the fact that my method doesn’t violate the Constitution at all. [“Show me where, good Justices!”]

My method should be hailed as a welcome relief by those who are tired of judicial tyranny, who yearn for a way to discourage judicial activism. Don’t forget – any of my 5-year nominees could be renominated, so perhaps they’d think twice before jeopardizing their second chance by engaging in extra-judicial behavior. Nowhere in the Law of the Land are judges granted lifetime appointments, though a lot of people make this assumption. They are allowed to “hold their offices during good behavior.” All I’m doing (in effect) is trying to define (at least in part) what constitutes “good behavior.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The only reason anyone could oppose my proposed 5-year judicial contracting system would be due to an inherently rigid mindset” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com .

  * “my contract” – I am the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a binding written contract to the voters, as explained here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

Replacing the US Supreme Court

Today, I will make a radical proposal to reform the US Supreme Court. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments will be part of the following analysis.

An interesting background story:

Yesterday, I posted a response to this article on Yahoo News: “Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias ruling.” The Court ruled that a class action lawsuit was not appropriate in this case.

QUOTE [my response]:

"… Because respondents wish to sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once, they need some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together," [Justice Antonin Scalia] said.

Ah, once again, Dirt Bag Scalia pontificates. Okay, Tony, I’ll spell it out for you. The “glue” you speak of is Wal-Mart’s very own Non-Discrimination policy which says, “Walmart will not tolerate discrimination in employment, employment-related decisions…”

That policy is an umbrella under which all Walmart employees and supervisors work. That’s the glue you weren’t (apparently) looking very hard for. If such policies are to be worth more than the paper they’re printed on, there must be a way unobstructed by SCOTUS antics that would allow for redress.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If elected, I will seek to remove Dirt Bag Scalia from the bench.”

:UNQUOTE.

Almost immediately, someone calling himself “Gladius,” challenged me:

QUOTE:

Steven Searle is blowing smoke up your sphincter. A Supreme Court appointment is for life. They are a separate branch of the government and the President has no power over them once congress approves an appointment…

:UNQUOTE.

To which I responded Thor-like:

:QUOTE.

Gladius,

Supreme Court appointments are not for life – nowhere does it say that. What [the Constitution] does say: “The judges…shall hold their offices during good behavior…” Here’s how we can use this to our advantage:

·       If I get a chance to appoint any new SCOTUS judges, I will ask my potential nominee to publicly sign a contract in which the candidate swears (upon oath) to resign after 5 years. Further, if he does not, his contract would stipulate that he’d be in violation of “good behavior” and should be impeached. That’s how we get rid of the erroneous but wide-spread belief that such appointments are for life.

·       As for Scalia (and actually, all 9 of them), I said “I will SEEK to remove…from the bench.” I will do that by having in my own written contract: “If you vote for me, I will demand the resignations of all 9 justices but will renominate them for 5 years [under the conditions stated above]. Failure of these justices to submit their resignations immediately to their new president will be defined as a violation of “good behavior” and will therefore be grounds for impeachment.

If We-the-People elect me under such a contract, that would mean We-the-People would be defining “good behavior” as indicated.

:UNQUOTE.

Precipitating a Constitutional crisis:

If elected, I would use the occasion of my inauguration ceremony to demand the immediate resignations of all nine Supreme Court justices.

Of course, they might refuse. Then what? Basically, I would tell them – in so many words – “I’m tired of your bullshit.” Meaning? I would instruct the Justice Department to have no dealings with this Court – file no briefs, make no appearances. For this Court would be illegitimate in terms of the will of the people.

That “will” would have been expressed by “the people” having voted for me – and my contract. That contract would have served as advance notice to the Court of my intentions. By voting for me, We-the-People voted for my contract, which states what I’d do if elected. It also says, if I fail to do as promised, I would forfeit the presidency.

So, by refusing the will of the people, the Supreme Court would stand alone. Or would it? Would Congress rally round the Court? They could do so by threatening to impeach me, which is something any Congress could do for the flimsiest of reasons – or none at all, truth be told. If I would win this election as an Independent, you can bet that a Two-Party dominated Congress would unite to undermine my administration. They’d love to go back to business as usual with one of their fellow Party animals in charge.

That’s where I come in…and you. The US President has huge power in terms of the Bully Pulpit. We-the-People hold our legislators in low esteem – as in, “You wouldn’t actually let your daughter date one, would you?” People perceive the Congress as a major contributor to our problems. So it would be easy for me to “lecture” Congress – in the same breath as when denouncing activist judges who dare to defy the will of the people.

An added consideration: Suppose, to explore a scenario, three Supreme Court justices were to die in a plane crash. That would give me a chance to nominate their replacements, which I would but only under terms of the 5-year contract detailed above. If I actually got three nominees to sign such a contract, the Senate could refuse to ratify – unless my nominees were to sign (and swear to uphold) another contract, which would void the 5-year term limitation.

The Senate could do anything it wanted, but there would be a problem: The potential justices would be “swearing to uphold” two contradictory contracts. Common sense tells me that a person cannot swear two such oaths. During the Senate’s confirmation hearings, my nominees could be told, “We’ll confirm you but only if you sign this contract, which basically frees you from complying with the one you’d signed for the President.”

At that point, my nominees should say, “I signed President Searle’s contract in exchange for him nominating me. I couldn’t have secured his nomination without signing that contract and swearing to uphold it. How can you offer to have me sign and swear to another contract releasing me from that vow, just to win your confirmation? If I should feel, here and now, that I couldn’t honor the contract I signed with the President, I would have to withdraw my nomination. Actually, my signing your contract would serve to void his nomination, which would mean you couldn’t confirm me under any circumstances.

“If you want to confirm me, it must be under the terms of the contract I’d signed and sworn to uphold per the President’s offer.”

Congress has yet another option: The Senate could refuse to confirm any of my nominees. That would not put the Supreme Court out of business since they could lawfully function with fewer than nine justices. However, it would give the Senate the chance to voice their opposition to the underlying philosophy of my political contracts.

That would be unwise, though, since We-the-People supported that philosophy by voting for me under the terms of my own contract. If the voters would accept my innovation, the Congress would be on the ethical low-ground to challenge them.

Ninth and Tenth Amendment considerations:

We the People have a lot more power than we realize, as enshrined in the Ninth and Tenth amendments – each only one sentence long.

The Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Bottom line? We have “rights” and “powers.” We have the “right” to transcend the dictates of Congress and make clear the rules under which we will be governed. Some call that the Right to Self-Determination. We have the “power” to call the shots – even if that would mean (in effect) “no more lifetime appointments for SCOTUS justices.”

 We have “rights” and “powers” alright. But only if we choose to be assertive enough to wield them. You and I should unite in our insistence in these and other matters. But courage is called for – the courage to say, “It doesn’t matter how we’ve ‘always’ done things, we have the ‘rights’ and the ‘powers’ to say otherwise.”

As for courage, think of it this way: “A gun in the hands of a coward is still in the hands of a coward.” Your “rights” and “powers” are far more potent than any gun. But you – and also I, I must admit – must summon up the courage necessary to make certain fundamental changes. I, for one, am tired of politicized, activist courts that split far too often along ideological lines. We deserve better than that. We deserve justices who are accountable, instead of the arrogant lot we have now who are too comfortable in their (alleged) lifetime appointments.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“In the name of the future of this country, we’ve got to take a stand. Are you with me on this?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Steven Searle steals New Hampshire

Help me steal the 2012 New Hampshire primary. Hell, let’s be bold enough to try stealing both primaries – the Democrats’ and the Republicans’. Now would be the perfect time to start making our move.

New Hampshire is legendary for its independent streak, and for its unpredictable presidential primaries. All we have to do is persuade local independents to declare themselves as Dems or Pubs (just for this primary) and write-in my name. It would also be nice to persuade genuine rank-and-file Dems/Pubs to vote for me, since they too might be willing to join us in making a statement.

Imagine the electrifying effect my winning both primaries would have! How’s this for a declaration of war against the political establishment:

"We, the voters of New Hampshire, are sending a loud and clear message to all presidential hopefuls: Steven Searle is right when he says we deserve candidates who are willing to provide bold, independent leadership. We need to purge all Democrats and Republicans from Congress, replacing them with Independents. We want candidates who are willing, like Mr. Searle, to present their campaign promises in the form of a written contract. We applaud this candidate’s enforceable contractual mandate to surrender his office should he violate any of the terms of his written contract.

“We, the voters of New Hampshire, deserve:

·         a vastly reduced military budget that won’t suck the life out of our economy;

·         complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the “conditions on the ground;”

·         a vigorous system of regulatory agencies headed by independents (instead of industry sympathizers) that enforces our laws, incapable of political corruption;

·         Single Payer universal health care, which can be paid for by closing all of our overseas military bases;

·         Personal credit card interest rates capped at 18% - since any higher rate should be considered usurious;

·         An end to the Senate’s unconstitutional filibuster option – an option which President Searle vows to challenge with a two-pronged attack: (1) via the court system, and (2) by refusing to allow any bill to become law by means of his affirmative action unless the Senate permanently repudiates the filibuster and acknowledges its unconstitutionality;

·         A reformed Congress that dismantles its unconstitutional seniority system and top-down management style that denies the effective input and equal participation of all (including the most junior) legislators;

·         Access to the judicial system that would allow the most indigent citizen to challenge the interests of the wealthiest citizens on an equal footing;

·         A judiciary in which justices don’t get lifetime appointments but instead are limited by contract to renewable five-year terms (this is constitutional, by the way).”

But what about Obama?

Some will argue that my proposal would undermine Obama’s campaign. And that might allow the GOP’s candidate to squeak into the White House. Frankly, I don’t think Obama deserves a second term – no more than he deserved to be elected (or even nominated) in the first place.

As for those who think he’s so great, ask yourself if he was really what you thought he was when you’d voted for him. Did you figure he’d dig us deeper in Afghanistan? Did you figure he’d mess up health care reform so badly – for example, by excluding the public option? Are we any closer to a lasting peace in the Middle East or are we still busy kissing Israel’s ass? How about broad-based income tax reform?

Has Obama made any moves whatsoever to level the playing field? Or has he rededicated himself, after realizing bipartisanship didn’t work, to improving the fortunes of his party? He talks of a recovery which may or may not ever take place – and if it does, it will have nothing to do with his leadership. He speaks of reasserting America’s world leadership, but fails to realize we can’t be the policeman of the world.

Obama serves the established “business-as-usual” order. And that was his intention from the very beginning. I never had any doubt about that. He’s just another Party-animal incapable of thinking outside the box.

We have a decision to make – a question to answer: Are we going to decide here and now that we must rid ourselves of the scourge of Democrats and Republicans once and for all, or are we going to find some excuse at the approach of every election to stick with the current system – train wreck that it surely is becoming?

Let’s have a little fun, why don’t we?

As I’ve said in earlier blogs, I’m hoping to base my campaign on a David vs. Goliath motif. And that will involve a generous overdosing on YouTube of a wide variety of (in effect) political commercials. I challenge the more creative of you to whip up a little something based on “stealing New Hampshire.” If I could actually win both the GOP and the Democratic primaries in that state, you’d better believe the head honchos of both groups would shit their pants. I’m not suggesting that you literally show that but…on second thought, I’ll leave that up to you.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

I am the only candidate with a contract: "You wouldn't sell your house without a contract; why give your vote away?"

Radical Reform of the U.S. Legal System

My thesis: Nothing less than a fundamental reformation of the U.S. legal system will usher in a New Age of Justice. I intend to initiate this reformation upon being elected as next President of the United States.

Opening salvo

There are a lot of patriotic, well-intended Americans who genuinely believe: "The USA is a nation of laws, not men." Meaning: The rule of law is paramount here, while in many other places much depends on who you are and who you know.

Increasingly, however, the USA is becoming more and more a nation of influential men who can bend the law to their advantage, leaving We-the-People shorn of our rights like sheep shorn of their wool.

My inspiration

Someone actually bothered to post a response to my blog entitled "Kosovo and US Presidential Power." That someone, calling himself "Polrick," posted this: "Diplomatic Recognition of Kosovo Revisited - A Reply to Steven Searle" - an essay of 1360 words at http://www.onevotematters.com/diplomatic-recognition-of-kosovo-revisited-a-reply-to-steven-searle/

I will respond to some of Polrick's points below. After that, I will make a recommendation to improve the wretched state of our legal system.

Analysis of Polrick's Essay

Point/Counterpoint: The Points below are from Polrick's essay (see link above). The Counterpoints which follow are my responses.

Point

...the propensity of legal scholarship and historical practice support my claim that the President does have the sole power of extending or canceling diplomatic recognition...

Counterpoint

But the actual wording of the Constitution itself does not support Polrick's claim.

Point

Like any text, the US Constitution is open to interpretation ... But the weight of the evidence indicates that Mr. Searle's interpretation of Article 2, Section 3 [of the US Constitution] has not been dominant in US history.

Counterpoint

Polrick is absolutely right about "the weight of the evidence." I admitted as much when I wrote: "Nobody on the planet (except me) is arguing: Bush doesn't have this power" and "I cannot dispute that our president has traditionally wielded this power."

However, it might be useful to ponder how the literal words of the Constitution came, in practice, to acquire their opposite meanings. Expressed another way: "How did our Constitution get hijacked?" Answer: It got hijacked by clever people who redefine words away from their generally accepted meanings.

A good example follows.

Point

The word "shall" in "shall receive ambassadors..." does not require the President to receive anyone who claims to be an ambassador. It simply gives the President the discretion to decide.

Counterpoint

Consider the use of the word "shall" in the First of the Ten Commandments: "You shall have no other gods before Me." To be consistent, Polrick would have to say (using his style of wording, employed above): "The word ‘shall' in ‘You shall have no other gods before Me" does not require you to have no other gods. It simply gives you the discretion to decide."

Bull shit!

Point

As early as 1793, it was widely recognized that the President has the sole power to extend diplomatic recognition.

Counterpoint

Uh huh...and there were people running around then who didn't quite understand the precept that "all men are created equal" - people who wanted to call President George Washington "Your Excellency." Some people are slow to get it. That's what we're here for: To help them get it.

These "slow people" totally buy into what one man (King Louis XIV) said: "I am the state."

It's interesting to me that the President (one man) is claimed to be endowed with the sole right of determining our foreign policy - including the right to grant diplomatic recognition to countries and to recognize Ambassadors. If the Constitution really bestows this power on "His Excellency, the President," then why does Article IV, Section 3 say: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union...?"

It doesn't say: "New states [which, prior to admission, are - of course - foreign entities] may be admitted by the Congress into this union - only with the approval of the President?" We seem to have an instance here, where the President has no power concerning this type of foreign affair. [UPDATE (7/19/12): Here I confess to not having been aware, until recently, that Congress and the President decide whether to admit new states.]

Point

In 1798, the US Congress passed the Logan Act (which is still officially on the books). This law made it illegal for any private US citizen to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign government. According to its official description, this law was "an Act to prevent usurpation of Executive functions."

Counterpoint

The Logan Act does not use either word ("diplomatic" or "negotiations") even once. Which is just as well, since only diplomats can carry on diplomatic negotiations. See for yourself: Here's the entire 136-word Act:

QUOTE [Text of the Logan Act: 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)]:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

:UNQUOTE.

This Act [allegedly] seeks to prevent activity by unauthorized, private US citizens "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States..." I could see the point if the Act specifically punished Americans who tried to pass themselves off as diplomats or falsely claim they represent our government.

However, suppose the following: If I were to send a letter to the British government, making it clear I was just a private US citizen, which persuaded them to remove their forces in support of an American military adventure, I could be arrested and imprisoned under the Logan Act. It wouldn’t even matter if my letter failed to persuade the British, as long as it was my intent (which it obviously would be) to influence that foreign government’s policy in support of the US.

Polrick writes: "According to its official description, this law was "an Act to prevent usurpation of Executive functions." I disagree - this Act was not intended to "prevent usurpation of Executive functions." It was intended to intimidate the common man, to lessen his freedom of speech, to gather more and more power unto one man so as to make him like a god (though we call him Mr. President).

We have to worry about this Act being so broad in its prohibitions. Even ex-Presidents, like Jimmy Carter, could be caught in its net. He could have been arrested for going to Syria to speak to a man he knew well - that country's president Bashar al-Assad. [As "fate" would have it, though, Carter was, in his own words, "ordered by the White House not to go" to Syria.]

I shudder to think what would have happened if he had met al-Assad (not in Syria but, for example) in France...assuming the State Department would have decided to let Carter travel at all. Which is another thing: I'm greatly opposed to limiting the right to free speech by controlling the ability of our citizens to travel.

As your next President, I shall have a great deal to say about that.

The fact that the Logan Act is still on the books says a lot about how the ruling elite feels about the common man. Here's how I, as your next President, would feel about the common man:

QUOTE:

By Executive Order, I hereby "abolish" the unconstitutional Logan Act, which is an affront to our basic rights as American citizens to participate in the marketplace of ideas. I "abolish" this Act by [key word follows] authorizing every U.S. citizen to share their ideas with anyone they please, as long as they make it clear they are acting as private citizens and not in the role of U.S. diplomats.

:UNQUOTE.

I know that the President cannot unilaterally declare federal statutes null and void. However, the entire Logan Act can be virtually voided by me if I focus on these six words in that Act: "without authority of the United States." The entire Establishment believes that only the President has power to conduct foreign affairs, and that this power is absolute.

In other words, in this case, the entire Establishment buys into the King Louis XIV doctrine: "I am the state." At least as far as the President and the conduct of foreign policy are concerned.

I will take advantage of this exclusive power (and my possession of it) to "deputize" all of my fellow citizens, sharing this power with them. Actually, I'd only be "giving" them rights they already had all along. Which the Establishment tries so hard, on a daily basis, to reduce.

There! That takes care of the odious Logan Act...but only if you elect me as your next President!

Point

He [James Madison, fourth US President and slave holder - yes, I count that as a black mark against him] believed that the President not only had the sole power of diplomatic recognition, but that he also authenticates - that is, judges - the true status of the foreign representative.

[NOTE 1: I inserted these words above: "James Madison ... him" - Steve Searle]

[NOTE 2: The following Counterpoint goes to the character of James Madison; this shows that we shouldn’t necessarily give a damn what Madison believed or wished.]

Counterpoint

James Madison wrote, "Another of my wishes is to depend as little as possible on the labour of slaves." [See: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_James_Madison's_view_on_slavery]

Maybe he meant to say, "Another of my wishes is to depend as little as possible on the labour of slaves - unless of course such magnanimity on my part would serve to reduce in any degree my personal wealth."

In either case, I would respond, "That's mighty White of you, Mr. President."

This same link states:

"James Madison was strongly opposed to slavery, and believed that it was bad for both the slave and the slave-holder. However, even though he had this view, Madison kept his slaves for his whole life." There's a special word to describe people like this: hypocrite. [NOTE: Madison also did not arrange to free his slaves upon his death.]

When Polrick wrote (above) "he also authenticates - that is, judges - the true status of the foreign representative," I have to ask: Who is the President (as one man) to judge anybody, even if supported by the likes of James Madison? As to the "true status of (a) foreign representative," I believe that foreign governments are best suited for determining the "true status" of their diplomats, by virtue of having appointed them in the first place.

Point

Edmond Genet arrived in the US from France. He presented his diplomatic credentials, addressed to the US Congress. President Washington would not receive Genet until he returned with diplomatic credentials addressed to the President.

Counterpoint

I think it was rather noble of France to grant credentials addressed to the US Congress, instead of to the President. That was France's way of acknowledging the underlying theme of the American Revolution by, in effect, saying: "We appreciate that your country is blazing a new trail, away from bowing to kings and treating kings as if they were the state. We therefore make this gesture of granting diplomatic credentials, not to a solitary kingly figure but instead to the body [Congress] which represents We-the-People."

George Washington was wrong to not have received Genet, since the Constitution (in plain English) says, "...he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers..." For this reason alone, George Washington should have been impeached by the Congress [no, I'm not kidding].

The Case of Boehner vs. McDermott:

An Illuminator of our Justice System's Faults

"A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner more than $1 million in legal fees in a decade-long dispute over an illegally taped telephone call" - April 1, 2008, Matthew Daly, Associated Press.

Background

QUOTE:

In December of 2004, Rep. McDermott came under investigation by the House Ethics Committee when they had to determine whether he violated standards of conduct for leaking an illegally recorded telephone conversation during a committee investigation in 1997. At that time the committee was investigating the conduct of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The [sic] illegal telephone conversation was recorded by a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who overheard a conversation between Rep. Gingrich and top Republicans, on their police scanner inside their car. After listening to the conversation for several minutes they decided to record it, at first for posterity's sake and after listening further decided that it might be important for the Ethics Committee to hear.

It was at that time that they delivered the tape to McDermott, the senior Democrat on the committee at that time, and who was in town for a swearing-in ceremony.

Shortly afterward, Congressman McDermott leaked the tape to several media outlets, including the New York Times.

:UNQUOTE [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDermott#Recorded_telephone_conversations ]

A couple of observations and additional info

·       Boehner really pulled a boner by having been so stupid as to use a cell phone to make this call.

·       Boehner supports President Bush's warrantless wiretapping efforts, though he was miffed that his own call was illegally wiretapped (though I don't see any "wires" here).

·       I believe that the right of the people to know, to the greatest extent possible, about the conspiracies of their elected government leaders must outweigh those leaders' "rights" to privacy.

·       At least McDermott was in a position to fight Boehner's lawsuit - including the ability to use funds from his own campaign war chest. Could the average American survive such expensive and lengthy litigation?

·       In April of 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals [one of the courts to hear this case] ruled against McDermott in a 5-4 split decision.

The kind of changes I'd like to see

For one thing, I am bothered by 5-4 split decisions in high courts. That would seem to indicate a system so byzantine that equally intelligent judges can easily arrive at opposite conclusions.

I remember reading, decades ago, about a man who had been appointed Chief Justice of the Swiss Supreme Court, who had no legal training whatsoever. In fact, he was a watchmaker by trade. The Swiss attitude was: Law should be simple enough that the average skilled workman should not only be able to understand it but should be able to render judicial decisions based on it.

In keeping with this Swiss doctrine, I support the idea of allowing "Juries" (with a capital "J") of common citizens to decide as many types of cases as possible, specifically disallowing the "services" of lawyers. Sounds outrageous? Perhaps, but there are compelling arguments.

Legal costs and the time it takes for cases to wend their way through the system are outrageous. We-the-People have allowed a monstrous edifice to dominate our lives, which dispenses legal opinions but not much in the way of justice.

Opponents would argue that we would run the risk of different Juries issuing inconsistent opinions in similar cases. Others might claim that litigants would be putting themselves at the mercy of the whims of such Juries. I have to wonder, though, if such whims might be preferable to the (sometimes rather thinly disguised) whims of professional judges. [Yes, I've been a victim of this.]

Inconsistencies could be handled by means of appeal. But not the kind of appeal we're familiar with. As I indicated in my writings on Cross-Sectional Representation, all decisions rendered by such Juries should be overturnable by Congress.

In addition, judges should be reduced to serving only in the role of moderator, with Juries being allowed to make rulings and determine punishments. I would also broaden what may be introduced into evidence and verbally expressed during a trial - completely broaden. This would include the right of any Juror to ask questions during the course of a trial. To me, this seems to be a justifiable expansion on the right of free speech.

Some might argue that such broadening would impinge on the defendant's right to a fair trial. This is a good point, which allows me to close this essay with my conclusion:

Conclusion

We cannot have a better system of justice until we become better people. I call upon all men and women of good conscience to work with me on this. Contribute your thoughts and actions toward the worthy goal of totally revamping our legal system. This includes efforts to uplift and enlighten our society. You (and you know who you are) can do this.

This important work must include helping me to replace all of our elected officials with independents. Democratic and Republican legislators - overwhelmingly lawyers themselves - will fight any attempt to reform our legal system tooth and nail. Quite simply, they've got to go.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"If you elect me as your next President, I promise to work with you to add profound meaning to the last three words of the Pledge of Allegiance" - Steve.

The Independent Contractors’ Party