J.A.I.L. (for judges) measure rejected in dramatic fashion (in S.D.)

[FernBell]

South Dakotans on Tuesday soundly rejected a constitutional amendment that opponents said would create chaos in the state’s courthouses and the halls of local government.

With 637 of the 818 precincts reporting, Amendment E was failing with 90 percent opposing it and 10 percent supporting it.

It would let people seek criminal charges or file lawsuits against judges and other government officials they believe have violated their rights.

Supporters said it would apply only to judges. But opponents said it would include members of school boards, county commissions and city councils because those officials sometimes make decisions of a judicial nature.


http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061107/NEWS/61107069

[still_one]

1. it was the stupidist and most dangerous ballot measure in the country

[Charlie Brown]

2. I think I read that every single member of the legislature opposed this

I find the fact that this even made it to the ballot disturbing.

[IntiRaymi]

3. I don't see an issue with bringing criminal charges against some.

The damage that a person in a position of trust, and authority, can cause to your life is immense.

[Katzenjammer]

4. Exactly. Nobody should be free of accountability, especially not when they

control the operation of law. There should be good safeguards preventing retaliation against a judge who, e.g., refuses to treat unpopular people as second-class citizens, but judges shouldn't be immune from correction/removal if they abuse their office. The appeals process doesn't do anything to stop an abusive judge from operating.

[bleedingheart]

5. well it is the responsibility of the electorate or those who choose

judges to make sure that there are no abuses.

If anything it is typically the conservative judges who have axes to grind. They typically are the ones who like to smack people hard with the law....

And also remember that precedent is a guiding rule in judicial decisions...most good judges don't go waving aside years of judicial judgement....

[struggle4progress]

6. "South Dakota judges may be removed in one of two ways:

On the recommendation of the judicial qualifications commission, the supreme court, after a hearing, may censure, remove, or retire a judge.

Judges may be impeached by a majority vote of the house of representatives and convicted by a two-thirds vote of the senate."

http://www.ajs.org/js/SD_methods.htm

[Megahurtz]

7. Judges SHOULD be held accountable.

This "Judicial Immunity" Law is PURE BULLSHIT.
I've seen many Idiot Judges who think they are God, in my lifetime.

Why the hell people would vote against this is beyond me.

[Raskolnik]

8. Do you have any idea what would have happened had this passed?

The judicial system as we know it would have been torn apart, and that's not hyperbole.

Thank Jeebus this moronic proposal was soundly defeated.

[Megahurtz]

14. I think our Judicial System does need to be torn apart.

That being said, I didn't get to read the Bill so I don't know exactly how it was worded.
I just know that "J.A.I.L." has good intentions towards our screwed up Judicial System.

My guess is that many of you that opposed this have never been in a Courtroom on the bad side
of a bad Judge. Come to California and watch our Kangaroo Courts and you will know why
the Judicial System needs to be revamped.

Only the rich can afford Attorneys. Justice should be available to all. Anyone who cannot afford an Attorney is at the mercy of a bad Judge, and I am not talking about Criminal Court.

So there should be a system set up for those who cannot afford good legal counsel. If the Judge screws up because a person can only afford to reresent themselves, then that person should have legal recourse, and should not be required to have money to do it. (i.e. filing a costly appeal)

[Raskolnik]

17. This amendment did not do what you are suggesting

I just know that "J.A.I.L." has good intentions towards our screwed up Judicial System.

http://www.jail4judges.org/

http://www.sd-jail4judges.org/

Visit these sites and get to know their good intentions. These are crackpots, and their ideas would lead to chaos.

[gratuitous]

9. Judges are held accountable

But allowing anyone who "believed their rights were violated" to file a criminal action would be an invitation to every disgruntled wacko to shut down a judge and a courtroom purely out of spite because he "believed" his rights were "violated" when a judge, reviewing the evidence and applying the law, found against him.

It would paralyze the system, which may be what the measure's writers intend.

Fortunately, 90% of South Dakota voters have enough of a working knowledge of the system to reject this nonsensical measure out of hand.

[kestrel91316]

10. Why? Because that's why we have an appeals process -

to overturn the bad decisions of incompetent judges.

Criminal charges against judges for the legal decisions they render????????
Are you completely INSANE?

[Megahurtz]

13. The Appeals process is broken.

It's very limited to what a person can appeal on, and they cannot appeal on the facts of a case.
And filing an appeal is very costly. I cannot afford to file a case appeal, and neither can many other Americans. Can you? :shrug:

[Raskolnik]

16. Blowing up the judicial system does not fix that.

If you cannot afford to pursue an appeal, why do you think you could afford to sue the judge?

[kestrel91316]

21. So the solution is to have a judge charged with A CRIME???

Give me a break. Show me one other civilized nation that does this.

[IntiRaymi]

11. I completely agree. Bush v. Gore.

Someone has to hold the SCOTUS accountable for attempting the destruction of our democracy.
That is known as TREASON.

[Raskolnik]

15. That is a very, very terrible idea.

If the margin would have been 5-4 in favor of Gore in 2000, would you have approved of the majority being sued or held criminally liable for their decision?

[IntiRaymi]

18. Well, Gore won the popular election,no?

He would have obtained the electoral votes needed, no?

The issue addressed is that of the subversion of the system that has made this country great, to install a worthless pretender in place.

[Raskolnik]

19. You didn't answer the question.

This isn't a debate about what the correct decision was in that case; the question is what happens when the judicial system produces a result with which you disagree. If the majority had ruled in favor of Gore, would you have approved of those justices being sued or held criminally liable for their decision?

Would you approve of the judges presiding over tobacco suits being sued by those companies for hundreds of millions of dollars? Would you approve of a judge being held criminally liable because he did not give a defendant the death penalty in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt?

[IntiRaymi]

20. Treason?

I suppose that violating the oath of office constitutes such a situation.
There are scales at which these things may be classified.

[Raskolnik]

22. With all due respect, you are apparently missing the point of this issue

This is not a discussion about the merits of Bush vs. Gore, or any other particular case, so let's take that out of the equation.

If this amendment had passed, the loser in every single court case, whether it was criminal or civil, could (and quite often would, I suppose) immediately bring charges against the judge presiding over the case, and the case would have to be essentially reheard in front of this new fourth branch of government.

The only people that would have benefited from this are people that benefit from the rule of law being thrown into chaos.

[Ikari Gendo]

12. As a South Dakotan...

I voted against this ill-concieved, over-reaching, anarchistic, just-plain-frickin'-stoooopid piece of legislation.

It got on the ballot because SD has a very loose referal system, where anyone who can get the signatures can get get a law onto the ballot. This isn't the first time that out of state groups have gotten really bad ideas onto the South Dakota ballots by circulating petitions that are phrased in a reasonable way.

This ammendment would have created a super-legal grand jury with no oversight. It would be a felony for a judge to review or challenge their decision. They would have the right to sue judges, jurors, school boards, parole boards and utilities commissioners by declaring that their decisions were "wrong".

The wording of the law puts the entire burden of proof on the defendant, not the plaintiff, in these cases, and is completely retroactive.




This sucker went down with only about 10% of the vote. Its chief backer is claiming voter fraud. He needs a bigger tinfoil hat.