Post #76 - January 11, 2023 - by Fred Bates
An independent judiciary does not mean judges are above scrutiny or oversight
In his annual year-end report on December 31, 2022, Chief Justice Roberts thanked Congress for strengthening judicial security. Chief Justice Roberts was referring to a law Congress recently passed increasing security and privacy protections for federal judges and their families. The act was named after the son of federal judge Ester Salas. Salas' 20-year-old son was killed in 2020 while at home in New Jersey by a deranged former litigant who was dissatisfied with Judge Salas' ruling in his case. The suspect found Judge Salas' address online. The killing of Judge Salas' son was a barbaric act by a truly despicable person. An attack on a judge or a family member of a judge by anyone based on a judge's decision(s) is an attack on democracy and our constitutional republic. To have a properly functioning judiciary, it is imperative that judges are able to carry out their constitutional responsibilities without fear of violence or intimidation.
In an article published on January 2, 2023, former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich stated that we cannot tolerate intimidation of our judiciary. Brnovich noted that he played a leading role in urging Congress to pass the legislation noted above that protects federal judges and their families. Brnovich mentioned in his article the threats made against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and US District Judge Aileen Cannon last year. He criticized the Democrat-controlled Congress for its lack of outrage and failure to act swiftly in passing legislation protecting federal judges after the threats against Justice Kavanaugh and Judge Cannon because they were appointed by a Republican President. You might remember that an armed subject was arrested in Justice Kavanaugh's neighborhood in an apparent attempt to assassinate the Justice. As for Judge Cannon, Brnovich contends that rhetoric from the left was close to inciting violence against the Judge after she ruled in favor of a Special Master in the case involving former President Donald Trump and the Justice Department regarding allegations that he stored top-secret documents illegally at Mar-a-Lago. Brnovich accused the Biden Department of Justice of looking the other way when Republican-appointed justices or judges are targeted for potentially illegal protests.
Brnovich also stated in his article that everyone in our society should condemn any attempts to subvert our democracy with intimidation tactics or violence against federal judges or Justices on the Supreme Court. At the heart of Brnovich's article is the importance of an independent judiciary. Chief Justice Roberts too has pointed out the importance of an independent judiciary in condemning violence and criticisms directed towards federal judges. It should be easy for everyone to agree with Chief Justice Roberts and Mark Brnovich about the importance of an independent judiciary and the need to protect our judges.
However, Chief Justice Roberts and Mark Brnovich failed to emphasize that an independent judiciary does not exempt judges from protests and does not exempt them from oversight. In our constitutional republic or democracy, the right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances is inviolable. That includes lawfully protesting the decisions of non-elected judges. The right to protest is as necessary to democracy as an independent judiciary. To his credit Brnovich stated that from its inception, America's judiciary has had its shortcomings by deciding cases wrongly. He said that many of the cases decided wrongly have been reversed, or they have yet to be overturned, implying that cases decided wrongly will ultimately be reversed. He said that such is life in the Constitutional Republic in which we live. Brnovich said that justice may take time, but it ultimately prevails.
While I agree with much of what Brnovich wrote in his article, I take exception to his suggestion that cases decided wrongly will at some point be overturned and that justice ultimately prevails. That is far from the truth. I make this claim based on my personal experiences with the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of three lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose and several City officials for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. Every single decision by the courts in my lawsuits were biased against me and were intentionally decided with a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and precedent. None of the unlawful rulings of the courts have been reversed despite my many efforts to obtain relief. It is no big secret that the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are plagued by corruption, dysfunction, and bias, just as many of our other federal courts. Also casting doubt on Brnovich's position that justice ultimately prevails are the words of Matthew Pritchard, an attorney for the City of San Jose who represented the City during my attempts to obtain relief from the judgments in my lawsuits that were decided wrongly. Mr. Pritchard boasted that the City would win because the courts never change their decisions, even if they are wrong.
Just as acts of violence and intimidation against federal judges should be condemned by everyone in society, so should the corruption, dysfunction, and bias that appears to have infected our federal judiciary. Congress was right in passing legislation providing more security for our federal judges. However, Congress has fallen short of its constitutional obligation to provide oversight over our federal judicial system. Rather, the judicial branch has been allowed to operate independently without any accountability whatsoever, using its independence as a shield to hide its corruption and to decide cases wrongly. Even though violence and intimidation of federal judges subverts democracy, the far greater threat to democracy is a corrupt, dysfunctional, and biased judiciary that does not adhere to the rule of law and precedent when deciding cases. Below are links that provide additional information about my claims against the US District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Additional information will be provided in future posts on my blog.
