We’ve seen a large number of federal judges appointed by Trump and the result will be a long-term effect of the federal judiciary shifting to the right and becoming more conservative. There’s actually a way of getting rid of every judge appointed by Trump to the federal courts, except for the Supreme Court appointments. And it’s been done before. Judges in Australia are appointed by the state and federal governments and have security of tenure. They can usually only be removed upon proved misbehaviour. Removing a judge this way is a rare occurrence, as it is in the US. There have been times in Australia when a government has wanted to remove a judge for some reason, maybe the person turned out to be a loose cannon, or incompetent, or the government didn’t like the way they decided cases, or whatever. The problem: how do you remove a judge who has not misbehaved but who the government thinks is a bad judge and wants to get rid of them? The answer: Pass an Act abolishing the court with the consequence that all the judges and other staff who work for the court cease to have positions. Then create a new court pursuant to the new Act. Then reappoint all the current judges, except for the ones that you want to get rid of. This has happened more than once in Australia and the judicial system there is very similar to the US. If it can work there then it will probably work in the US. For example, there was a man named James Staples who was appointed as a deputy president of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a body that determined labor disputes. He had the same security of tenure as a federal judge. In 1989 the prime minister at the time, Bob Hawke, wanted to remove him but Staples had done nothing to justify his removal. So the government passed an act abolishing the Commission and establishing a new body with a different name, but the same jurisdiction. All judicial members were reappointed to the new body, except James Staples. Problem solved, Staples was gone. Rep. Louie Gomert (R-TX) made an interesting comment during the recent William Barr testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. He said this: "All federal courts, except for one, owe their existence and continuation and jurisdiction to the US Congress." He’s right. The US Congress established federal courts in addition to the Supreme Court and the US Congress can abolish those courts any time it wants, by simply passing an Act doing so. When the court is abolished so are the judges. It would be very easy to establish a new federal court that could take over the cases of the old one and reappoint only the judges you want, such as every current judge except the ones appointed by Trump.
Which highlights the basic situation: They aren't Trump's judges. They are the Republican Party's judges. The Senate controls Federal Judiciary appointments, and the Republican Party controls the Senate. If Congress were to dissolve and restructure the Federal Judiciary tomorrow, it would more likely use the opportunity to get rid of all the judges except the more recent Republican appointees. If they want to be governed by a representative Congress, a reasonably honest and impartial Judiciary, and an executive administration subject to that Congress and Judiciary, the citizens of the US must get rid of the Republican Party. As Lincoln put it, ( terms updated to modern times): the Union cannot permanently endure half fascist and half free. It will become all one, or all the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_House_Divided_Speech
No, since the US has three co-equal branches of government, one branch cannot just abolish portions of another unilaterally. Australia obviously doesn't have a system that protects from the current government just reshaping the judiciary to make it more favorable.
One branch can replace a malfunctioning portion of another branch, with a functioning portion. That would be its Constitutional duty. That's one major reason the branches exist in the first place - it's called "checks and balances". Americans are supposed to have learned about this in high school.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Sure it does. You just saw an impeachment, for example - completely Constitutional. Again: Checks and balances are something all Americans are supposed to have learned about in high school. You guys sleep all the way through tenth grade?
Interesting. "One branch cannot just abolish portions of another unilaterally". Even if the branch doing the abolishing created the portion of other? Who do you think created the inferior federal courts? They were created by Congress. Are you saying that Congress has power to create inferior federal courts, but does not have the power to abolish those same federal courts? So once created by Congress, it is beyonod the power of Congress to abolish an inferior court? What is it exactly that would prevent Congress from repealing the Act of Congress which established the inferior federal court?
mincing with dance card grammar the congressional voting process may be an electoral principal which over rides the legal right of the individual nature of congress like an election can not be un-elected sample test can police simply remove a law they dont like ?
Not as a means to simply get rid of unfavorable judges. Any dissolved court would have its judges dispersed to other courts. IOW, it wouldn't get rid of Trump appointed judges.
Why? How exactly would this happen automatically, without Congressional madate? Who decided what "other courts" the judges without a court would go to? And further, as I pointed out this has happened several times in Australia which has a legal system, admittedly not exactly the same, but pretty similar to the US. Judges who found themselve not appointed to a reconstituted court challenged it in court, and lost. The bottom line here is that a legislative body with power to create a court, also has power to abolish the court. If the court is abolished so are the judges, for how can you be a judge without a court?
It's US legal precedent. Where do you think all the new judges appointed every year go? There's always openings on other courts.
As I understand police, Australia, do have a modicum of discretion in enforcement for minor breaches depending on the circumstances Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, prosecutorial discretion is something that everyone understands. I think police and prosecutors everywhere have discretion not to pursue a prosecution for some particular reason. But that is something different from "removing a law they don't like" which was the above poster's suggestion.
The judges would have to be appointed, confirmed by Congress, etc, - and those openings would have been eliminated with the court system that defined them. There is no US legal precedent for this situation. Foreign legal precedents have been invoked during arguments in high US. Courts, but as has been pointed out here most relevant ones would tend to support Congress in this case. As often noted - and even presented for discussion - these guys devolve to rhetorical gibberish when cornered. They lose the ability to write (and read?) grammatical English. As noted: that's interesting. It's usually far more interesting than anything they were trying to say.
Who said otherwise? How do you think those new judges have seats to get appointed to? While some are appointed to newly created courts/seats, new judges also replace dead or retiring judges. IOW, moved judges are just appointed to specific courts where otherwise new judges would be. It's not rocket science.
