(Back to Confronting)


Next, the Club argues:

Judges Pay to Be Attacked

This is one of several cynical examples of the way Amendment E is unfairly biased against judges: this paragraph actually docks their paycheck even if they haven't done anything wrong. No other position in any branch of government is subject to this kind of treatment. The amendment requires the judges to pay out of their own pockets to fund the Special Grand Jury. In other words, judges have to pay for the privilege of being personally sued by a disgruntled litigant. Even if that judge were found innocent, he or she would have to pay to defend themselves in a hostile forum they were required to pay for. It's another example of the authors' hatred for judges.

Our response:

Since J.A.I.L. is a process by the Special Grand Jury designed to maintain the integrity of the judicial system in each instance that a judge is alleged to have refused to perform his/her responsibilities under constitutional requirements after the system has had every opportunity, through exhaustion, to do so, it stands to reason that judges should bear part of the budget therefor. This budget should not be on the backs of the taxpayers. After all, it's the judges whose conduct will necessitate use of this process. It is in the interest of each and every judge that the system in which they function retains its integrity free from corruption.

The No-On-E Club states "No other position in any branch of government is subject to this kind of treatment." This statement is untrue. Many government employees have union dues deducted from their salaries for their job protection. All members of the State Bar are required to pay Bar dues to assure the integrity of the legal profession. Likewise, judges need the protection of J.A.I.L. for the preservation of the integrity of their profession. A judicial system that is perceived by the public as having no integrity will certainly face its demise. Even as the U.S. Judicial Code of Conduct sets forth:

"Canon 2A. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. ... Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. ..."

Everything goes to the courts when problems arise that can't be resolved. "We'll take the matter to court" is considered the proper "remedy" --and it should be! The judiciary is the funnel through which all complaints ultimately pass, and therefore, it's the judiciary that must be held accountable to the People for its procedural conduct as the final arbiter in dispute resolution. "This kind of treatment" has been needed for more than 200 years. It's a treatment that will restore justice in this nation and preserve the integrity of our judicial system. 

The No-On-E Club incorrectly states, "judges have to pay for the privilege of being personally sued by a disgruntled litigant." Being "personally sued by [any] litigant" is strictly at the election of that litigant, after the Special Grand Jury has determined, based on the court record, that the judge(s) in question may have committed any of the violations set forth in paragraph 2, to be finally determined at a subsequent trial, if pursued by the litigant. Judges would be paying for the pretrial determination by the SGJ if that becomes necessary --not for being sued.

The subject of judicial accountability is the judges. It is because of judges, and the power they wield, that a process of judicial accountability to the People must be available as a final check on that power. Think of this funding as a type of  insurance premium which judges must pay in order to assure their job security. It is further in the interest of the state itself to have its judiciary participate in the expense of maintaining the integrity of the system, and not burden the innocent taxpayers. An honest and accountable judicial system benefits everyone.

The author doesn't hate judges --he hates corruption


(Back to Confronting)