Is this Constitutional?

Question

This is about a ballot initiative in a state that sets up a "super grand jury of citizens." They would be randomly selected from voter registrations to oversee judge's rulings and decide if they should be fired.

South Dakota

Found it here http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=13073.0

Yes, That is from a Christo-Fascist website. They steal articles from other websites and paste them to their forums. I had to link to them because I'm too lazy to find the original.

Answer 1

At the federal level, the only way to remove a federal judge that has been confirmed by the Senate is impeachment. So, having a mob that tries to fire federal judges would be unconstitutional.

At the state level, the states can set up any system they want to hire or fire state judges. Most already have elections for this purpose.

Then again, what you are proposing is perhaps the most certain and guaranteed way to destroy the entire court system. You're talking about a bunch of people, with no legal training, making what will amount to purely emotional decisions, with no checks or balances.

So, what happens is, judges will be more interested in making popular decisions, rather than actually applying the law, because unpopular decisions threaten their jobs. That was the original point of having an independent judiciary. If you are going to do that, you might as well close the state courts entirely and just go to a private arbitration model. People will pay for whatever outcome they want, and the judges/arbiters who give people popular outcomes will keep their jobs.

We will have lost any concept of justice or the rule of law, but those seem to be obsolete and devalued in modern society anyway.

{EDIT}

Of course, South Dakota. The state that said "We don't like the US Supreme Court's decisions, so we're going to ignore them."

Answer 2

i guess that one way of doing it, but i personally as a C.J student do not approve or indores such actions. I believe that are founding fathers ment for us to be judge by are peers not ones that are pick based on politics. Eg... is it smart to pick a liberal who may oppose abortion, to a trail in which the female thought it was the only option. Is it a good idea to add a republican to a jury that has to decied the fate of a big bussiness ceo. no

Answer 3

at first when i noted the site you mention i figured it was just another christo-fascist takeover plan. but, after reading the article, there's much more involved than your question suggests. while i 'd have a hard time condoning the plan, it does have some merit, especially if there is some oversight by "qualified" monitors of some sort.

Answer 4

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits civilian review of the Judiciary.

The people delegated judicial political power to a Supreme Court, but the people retain that power themselves, being inherent holders of all political power. It is the duty of the people to reign in government at any level when they see it going astray.

Answer 5

It's an interesting proposition, but how in the hell could random citizens with potentially no knowledge of law and justice possibly monitor judges? I know that there's alot of emotional baggage that goes along with justice, oh no, the judge didn't render the verdict I wanted him to. Oh boo hoo.

Don't think it would fly.

FP

Answer 6

I like it! Sounds like a new way to put gov't control back in the hands of the people! :-)=

Answer 7

Not a bad idea !
If enough people vote for it , it can be made constitutional .

Answer 8

N O

Where is this ridiculous exercise taking place?

Answer 9

i don't think so