The Judicial Accountability Act

Congress must implement robust mechanisms to ensure judicial accountability for rulings rendered by judges. When a judge’s decision is overturned by a higher court, it should prompt a thorough investigation aimed at assessing potential incompetence, inadequate legal comprehension, or bias.

Judicial decisions that are overturned must necessitate the removal of the presiding judges in order to demonstrate the integrity of the judiciary. This safeguard underscores the importance of accountability in the judicial process, ensuring that the standards of legal reasoning and decision-making are upheld by every judge.

In some instances, judges may issue decisions with the anticipation that they will be reversed on appeal, a practice often referred to as “gaming the system.” This unethical conduct undermines the rule of law and compromises the fundamental rights of citizens to receive fair and impartial hearings. Addressing and eliminating this practice is critical to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. A clear statute should exist that enforces the removal of any judge whose ruling is reversed.

Judicial accountability must extend to the consequences of overturned decisions. Legislative statutes must ensure that any ruling, reversed by a higher court, necessitates the removal of that judge as a corrective action.

Mandating the removal of judges following reversed decisions will end the practice of selling a judge’s ruling to the people under whom the jurist owes allegiance. “Removal” will make every judge an honest broker of the law.

Removing judges who are reversed will strengthen public confidence in the judiciary and hold accountable those judges who misuse their legal rulings for money and influence.

Removing a judge in response to an overturned ruling serves as an effective deterrent against “judge shopping.” This practice involves parties deliberately seeking out judges perceived as favorable to their cause in order to achieve predetermined outcomes, thereby compromising the fair application of the law for the opposing party.

It is imperative to limit the unchecked authority of the judiciary by enforcing accountability for flawed, biased, or improperly influenced decisions. The removal of judges—when their decisions are reversed—stands as a necessary remedy to address such abuses of power. **Any judge, whether at the federal, state, or local level, who has their decision reversed should be removed from the bench. Such reversals indicate a fundamental error in judgment, which may be due to incompetence, ethical breaches, or coercive influences from interested parties.

The question arises: how many errors are acceptable from judges whose erroneous rulings directly affect the lives of citizens and the trajectory of the nation? The answer is none. Jurists must be held to the highest standard of ethical conduct if the institution is to maintain any semblance of legitimacy.

The implications of judicial errors are often profound and long-lasting, emerging long after the fact, at which point accountability for flawed judgments is lost. The legislative branch needs to implement immediate remedial measures for judges whose decisions are incorrect, unreliable, and lacking legal validity when overturned by a higher court…

The practice of judicial reversal has been weaponized, and Congress must take action to prevent judges, engaged in this subterfuge, from using this power.

A perception exists that some judges operate with a sense of absolute authority, believing they are exempt from the constitutional checks and balances that govern their actions. They are not.

Judges are not monarchs; they do not create laws for citizens. Their role is to issue opinions and handle clerical administration, which, according to the Constitution, does not grant any judge the authority to enforce such opinions.

Judges depend on the voluntary adherence of individuals to their administrative rulings.

Presently, these judicial figures do not face accountability for their decisions, irrespective of their ethical validity.

Therefore, Congress, acting as the legislative embodiment of the American people, must take concrete steps to address this critical concern by enacting legislation that mandates the removal of any judge whose rulings are overturned.

This proposed statute should clearly state that any judge whose decision is reversed shall be removed from the bench.

It is incumbent upon the judiciary to remember that their service is to the people, and it is both our right and responsibility to hold them accountable.

Judges may be removed for decisions that are flawed, compromised, coerced, influenced by corruption, or reversed by a higher court.

Judicial rulings must adhere to the rule of law established by the Constitution.

If judges abuse their authority by making reversible decisions, they must be removed from the bench due to their betrayal of the oath they took to deliver impartial and fair rulings.

Reversal is equivalent to incompetence, and removal is the appropriate remedy.

The judiciary must be compelled to stay in its lane and avoid meddling in matters outside of its jurisdiction.

3 Likes

So in other words only judges that disagree with Donald Trumps unconstitutional executive orders right. If this was right leaning judges stopping a democratic President from doing the same thing you’d celebrate that as progress & want to give that judge a raise right. You guys are unbelievable. It’s not just left leaning judges but also judges Donald Trump put on the bench that are stopping his crap.

1 Like

If any judge is reversed, he must, by my proposed law, be removed from the bench. Period. I will not tolerate a judge making an erroneous judgment that will affect the lives of the people who are in front of him and suffer no consequence. “In front of him…:” A judge’s ruling is effective upon the people who petition him, who are in front of him. His ruling does not extend to the whole Nation. Donald Trump is the example. The people are the object. Every reversible opinion of any judge in any court hurts the people first, and Donald Trump second. What the judiciary is doing to Trump, the judiciary has been doing to us for a long time. Judicial reversal is not a political strategy. It is a testament to judicial impeachability. Donald Trump said that he was the only thing standing between the actions of a corrupt government and we, the people. Donald Trump is right.

3 Likes

It is clearly evident by your comment that you suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. Your fear of what Donald Trump will do as president is irrational and based upon the brainwashing of the MSM.

2 Likes

Lol

As a person who has a loved one waiting for 6 years for his day in court, meanwhile sitting in jail, it is egregious that you can site the statute directly, prove how you are innocent and have a judge deny you with no reason other that you plead guilty…“sorry but we’re not letting you pull your plea, even now that you have educated yourself on the law”.

1 Like

Judges are not little gods, although most of them act that way.

1 Like

Our Judicial system worldwide is in the toilet. The worst case of mass coruption ever. From my experience over many years, the majority of judges are bias with an extreme case of tunnel vision. IMO the only way to fix the situation is to clean house often, and pubilcize to further educate society.

I recently went through a civil matter for injunctive relief, nuisance & trespass, invasion of privacy & intentional infliction of emotional distress. I submitted over 100 pieces of video and photographic evidence only to discover after the final judgment that the presiding Judge was BLIND. Literally blind, she has Stargardt disease and was declared 80% blind in high school. This disease has no treatment or cure. Short of throwing thousands of dollars into an appeal, this judge denied me my right to due process under the law because she failed to disclose her impairment from the onset.

So there are many reasons why people need to stand behind your efforts to correct major flaws in our judicial system. Unfortunately, the added problem is the majority of people aren’t/don’t get involved in the judicial system to know this problem exists so when voting time comes around they are just checking boxes.

1 Like

These judges must be humbled.

In light of all the judicial interference we have seen in recent times, this sounds reasonable on the surface. That being said, there are legitimate reasons a higher court might disagree or interpret the law differently from the lower court. So to immediately sanction the lower court judge is NOT reasonable. When even in the Supreme court, the justices do not agree on the interpretation of many of our laws, that may not be well written, and can easily be misconstrued.

However, a judge that maliciously rules contrary to the law for the sole purpose of political interference should, be permanently disbarred.

1 Like

I understand your perspective. However, the abuses committed by the judiciary against Donald Trump must be decisively remedied. This goes beyond the mere personal indiscretions of the judges involved; it concerns “systemic corruption” and institutional rot, perpetrated by individuals within the judiciary. The focus must be on dismantling the weaponization of the judicial system by criminal elements who abuse it. Achieving this requires the removal of those responsible. We have to stop coddling the criminals. Justice will not be compromised if an incompetent, extorted, blackmailed, or bribed judge is removed from their position for rendering a “reversible” decision. By holding the threat of “removal” over the heads of corrupt, incompetent, unethical and immoral jurists, the people ensure they are not governed by a judiciary that disregards accountability and the will of the people. When the government fears the people, we have liberty. Not the other way around.

I was just asking why none of our supreme courts have ever challenged the totally illegal 16th amendment(income tax), that completely violates our rights as previously laid out in the constitution.
If our supreme courts have all been that inept or corrupt, then maybe we shoudl have the opposite of your proposal.
Lets allow lower courts to challenge the higher, and cause an investigation by a court of randomly selected judges to investigate whether that court is following the law.

1 Like

The responsibility to address unconstitutional decisions made by the Supreme Court ultimately rests with the legislative branch of the U.S. Congress. For instance, did the Supreme Court overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision? No, it was Congress—the representatives of “we, the people”—that rectified the Court’s error by passing the 14th Amendment.

The people hold the power to oversee and address the Supreme Court’s misguided decisions. As representatives of the people, Congress serves as the solution to counteract any corrupt actions by the Court. However, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), when Congress passed the “marriage law,” it overstepped its constitutional authority.

Congress failed to take action to uphold the rights of states in addressing this matter, neglecting to challenge the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling and its encroachment on states’ authority.

There is no automatic process to correct errors made by the Supreme Court, and addressing such errors is not the intent of this proposed legislation.

Conversely, any lower court judge whose ruling is reversed must be removed from the bench for “cause.” Because they made a mistake…

The only criterion for “removal” is whether or not a higher court found error and reversed the judge’s decision.

This mechanism removes the need to prove negligence, malice, coercion, incompetence, or bias in a judge’s decision.

“Reversal” is the validation of a judge’s incompetence. The only effective solution is “removal.”

“Removal” highlights the judicial system’s dedication to rectifying the impact of a judge’s incompetence on the affected individual.

This is neither political nor tied to any specific party.

The proposed legislation aims to address a critical vulnerability recently exploited by the “politicized” judiciary, particularly in cases concerning national defense and decisions allowing the unlawful entry of individuals into the country. Such rulings undermine the rule of law and verge on acts of treason. To safeguard our national security interests, this proposed legislation introduces an “auto-correction” mechanism—automatic removal of judges if their decisions are reversed. “Removal” is impartial and resolute. It safeguards the judiciary’s integrity when compromised by an erroneous decision from one of its appointees. This action is crucial to preserving the court’s credibility and ensuring the security of the American people.