1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13174/the-tyranny-of-the-bench/

The Tyranny of the Bench

July 6, 2010 by

One of the fatal flaws in the concept of “limited” government is the judiciary. It is up to government judges to rule on whether government judges are immune from the law. FULL ARTICLE by Murray N. Rothbard


Allen Weingarten July 6, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Clearly, nobody should be a judge in his own case. In the event that judges create (or arbitrarily interpret) the law, shouldn’t the legislature, or the public, have the power to remove those judges?

P T Bull July 6, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Once justices no longer feel bound by the plain language of the consitution, they are a super-legislature and there are no checks and balances. Many judges today are instruments of marxism, ‘discovering’ all sorts of rights and entitlements where none existed before.

Its to the point now where judges feel free to state they don’t feel bound by the language of statute or contstitution–using more liberal sources like international law and laws from other countries to shape what they consider to be a better way of doing things. Once such practices are in place, the black letter law becomes an irrelevant historical oddity.

Naturally whenever one expresses a wish that the constitution was interpreted as it was in the 1950s or before the expansion of the commerce clause in the 1930s, one is immediately accused of longing for slavery, and pining away for the good old days of racism and jim crow. This is of course baseless, but it suffices to keep the sheeple from looking more deeply into the issues.

Allen Weingarten July 6, 2010 at 3:13 pm

P T Bull, if as you suggest, the public finds the liberal views acceptable, the issue less with the judges, and more with our having lost the war of ideas.

(8?» July 6, 2010 at 5:02 pm

Meanwhile, if you get called for jury “duty” in Missouri, they are going to make you sit and wait even longer while they run background checks on you, to make sure you didn’t lie about being “non-biased” (whatever that’s supposed to mean).

Too bad they do all of this before they make you swear to obey the judge, as that little bit of dissent is all it takes to be dismissed.

Tim July 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm

Rothbard says: “It is up to government judges to rule on whether government judges are immune from the law. How do you think they would decide?”

Something similar in today’s WSJ:

PAHRUMP, Nev.—Like a scene from a Western movie, the two top lawmen here are settling their scores in public.

In May, a Nye County sheriff’s deputy arrested the district attorney. The sheriff, Tony De Meo, alleges that the D.A., Robert Beckett, was misusing public funds.

According to Mr. De Meo, public money had gone to supporting the local cheerleading squad, led by the D.A.’s wife, and to make a family friend’s car payments. No charges have been filed, in part because Mr. Beckett, the D.A., refuses to charge himself.

Allen Weingarten July 7, 2010 at 4:50 am

Thomas Jefferson wrote “(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

T.C. July 7, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Perhaps the smell of hot tar, and the sound of chickens being plucked of their feathers, outside of the venerable magistrate’s chambers, would cause said magisrate to harken back to a particular moment in our history.
We backhoe operators are such crass and base fellows. Imagine holding someone responsible for their actions! It’s dern raught un-Ahmarican I tell ya!
Phonetic spelling is so laborious. I wonder what the red neck version of e-bonics is?

T.C. July 7, 2010 at 5:45 pm

On a more serious note. I spent a brief period (2yrs.), in the legal research community attached to the ‘ Tax Honesty Movement’. In that arena, one of the regulars asserted that all Federal judges and U.S. Attorneys are required to sign a waiver, allowing the IRS and other agencies to collect data on them and hold that data in secret. I’m not now nor was then actually engaged in legal research on my own. My question is this. Is someone who is actually engaged in legal research aware of this regulation, and where it can be found?

billwald July 7, 2010 at 9:04 pm

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the final say. If the authors didn’t intend this they could have given Congress authority to overturn the Supremes with a super majority. They didn’t.

T.C. July 9, 2010 at 12:10 pm

I think you’ve missed something. Congress can impeach Federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices. Their rulings cannot go outside of the jurisdictons contained in the Constitution. I’m unsure where ‘penumbras’ are found in the constitution. If something is ” vague, indefinite, or borderline”, what justifies overturning the laws of virtually every state in the Union? Rulings such as Roe are legislating from the bench. Case in point. The 14th Amen. is the basis for the Courts opinion in Roe. Even the most basic review of the legislative history of the 14th, gives the lie to the ruling. The 14th was enacted to give the 3+ mil ‘stateless persons’, the former slaves , standing in the law. The civil privileges&immunities were to mirror the Rights of the state citizen. Chief among those is the right to life, and due process. Killing an unborn human violates at least two of those privileges. Those justices should have been impeached.

misanthropope August 17, 2010 at 5:01 pm

“When clothed in the robes of his office, the judge can do no legal wrong and is therefore immune from the law itself”

what a remarkable assertion. did i overlook some sort of evidence presented, to support it?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: