![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The legislature is getting really busy up there in South Dakota, notes ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pecunium; a group is seriously lobbying for a referendum to pass a law allowing mob rule to supercede the law. And they're going to tax the judges to fund it too; talk about insult to injury!
For the purpose of returning power to the People, there is hereby created within this State a thirteen-member Special Grand Jury with statewide jurisdiction having power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries.
This Grand Jury exists solely for "judicial accountability." They're going to hold those nasty activist judges to account for upholding the law as written and interpreted! Because when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. After all, we all "know" that the Dover ID Decision, the Terri Schivo case and its multiple appeals, and Roe vs Wade should have been decided by popular vote, not by jurisprudence!
Or maybe not even a popular vote - we are talking about 13 randomly selected citizens - except those citizens who are elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel. What would people like THOSE know about the law? No, we're going to go with names ... publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. I'm SURE that there won't be cabals of special interests submitting their names en masse in order to deliberately tilt these juries. Completely positive it couldn't happen.
And just to make sure that the judges are held plenty accountable for absolutely anything that would get the citizenry's knickers in a knot, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced. Remember - just because the prosecutor says "there's no crime or case here" doesn't mean that there is indeed neither case nor crime!
Like those slutty women who get preggers should not expect public support in the form of birth control, welfare, or access to abortion in support of their slutty ways, activist judges had better not expect any public support for their defiance of the public's wishes vis a vis their judgements. No judge complained against, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment. I know in my heart that nobody, neither individuals nor a group would abuse this clause in order to personally bankrupt a judge in order to make a point and/or intimidate other judges. I have more faith in human nature than that. Not even with the tempting cherry that No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt. Nope, no possible abusive uses of these privileges.
(And just in case any judge might get it in their head that actions taken against them aren't fully legal under this new law, we'll remind them that No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person. Again, there's just NO POSSIBLE way this could be used for vendettas, either personal or ideological. Nope. Not even when one of the supporters of the bill is advertising his "police-and-military-against-the-new-world-order" website in his endorsement.)
Sound UnConstitutional? Such niggling details are tidily taken care of: Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision ... Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.
Unfortuately, the stupid South Dakota legislature won't pass it, grumbles the bill's sponsor.
pecunium; a group is seriously lobbying for a referendum to pass a law allowing mob rule to supercede the law. And they're going to tax the judges to fund it too; talk about insult to injury!For the purpose of returning power to the People, there is hereby created within this State a thirteen-member Special Grand Jury with statewide jurisdiction having power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries.
This Grand Jury exists solely for "judicial accountability." They're going to hold those nasty activist judges to account for upholding the law as written and interpreted! Because when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. After all, we all "know" that the Dover ID Decision, the Terri Schivo case and its multiple appeals, and Roe vs Wade should have been decided by popular vote, not by jurisprudence!
Or maybe not even a popular vote - we are talking about 13 randomly selected citizens - except those citizens who are elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel. What would people like THOSE know about the law? No, we're going to go with names ... publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. I'm SURE that there won't be cabals of special interests submitting their names en masse in order to deliberately tilt these juries. Completely positive it couldn't happen.
And just to make sure that the judges are held plenty accountable for absolutely anything that would get the citizenry's knickers in a knot, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced. Remember - just because the prosecutor says "there's no crime or case here" doesn't mean that there is indeed neither case nor crime!
Like those slutty women who get preggers should not expect public support in the form of birth control, welfare, or access to abortion in support of their slutty ways, activist judges had better not expect any public support for their defiance of the public's wishes vis a vis their judgements. No judge complained against, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment. I know in my heart that nobody, neither individuals nor a group would abuse this clause in order to personally bankrupt a judge in order to make a point and/or intimidate other judges. I have more faith in human nature than that. Not even with the tempting cherry that No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt. Nope, no possible abusive uses of these privileges.
(And just in case any judge might get it in their head that actions taken against them aren't fully legal under this new law, we'll remind them that No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person. Again, there's just NO POSSIBLE way this could be used for vendettas, either personal or ideological. Nope. Not even when one of the supporters of the bill is advertising his "police-and-military-against-the-new-world-order" website in his endorsement.)
Sound UnConstitutional? Such niggling details are tidily taken care of: Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision ... Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.
Unfortuately, the stupid South Dakota legislature won't pass it, grumbles the bill's sponsor.
