I would like to know more about clear coherent non-plauche solutions for judicial malfesmafications
Wyświetl załącznik 9025459
Assuming you're serious, at the federal level judges can only be formally removed from office via impeachment, which in turn can only be done by congress. This is why every dumbass dipshit federal judge from every little podunk district you never heard of (or cared about) feels empowered to act like a prick and fuck with national politics even from their little jurisdiction (like the asshole from Hawaii who made a nuisance of himself during Trump's first term) -- no matter how disruptive and obviously wrong they are, and no matter what public opinion is, they're invincible because they know congress doesn't have the balls to impeach, much less actually convict and remove a shitty federal judge from the bench.
At the state level, every state does it differently, though a common element is judges do have to actually run for office (the first time, at least), and then from there the worst they face is usually a "retention question" on the ballot, and people almost always just vote "yes, retain" or ignore that question on their ballots because practically nobody gives a shit. Sometimes judges actually have to campaign to keep their jobs in election season if someone decides to put up a challenge for a seat, but that doesn't happen all that often.
There
is at least the Bar Association in each state, which is empowered to disbar attorneys and judges alike, though good fucking luck convincing one to actually do it. It is so rare to see a judge get disbarred it makes the national news.
It was (is?) believed when all this evolved and got set up by our forefathers that judges should be far less "vulnerable" to political machinations -- their job is to interpret and rule on the law as it stands, and ensure the rights of all participants in the judicial system, and the idea was a judge should not be punished for making a correct ruling just because it's unpopular. A judge worried about losing his job at the drop of a hat is much more susceptible to the demands of mob justice and less likely to make reasonable, legally accurate/correct rulings. Judges are (deliberately) trusted by our system of government
far more than practically any other public official, whether elected or appointed because of this reasoning.
Unfortunately, that only works when you have honest judges. When you have an activist (or just straight-up crooked) judge, that trust gets abused like mad, and the system's weakness (it being very difficult to remove a sitting judge) is weaponized by said judge to keep him in power.
Ergo states (and the federal government both) need to evolve to adapt to this new problem (okay, it's not new, but it's becoming newly visible and over-the-top as a mostly liberal cheating toolbox) to add more levers of power that the public can wield directly to remove judges who step outside their lane, who try to legislate from the bench, and who wear their biases on their sleeves.
