Ever wonder why Jeff Roe would attack Judge Brown from Cole County even though he never met Judge Brown or the person running against him? Why start the Adam Smith Foundation to pick on Supreme Court judges and the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan? Why would Blunt pick on a Republican he was putting on the Supreme Court? We all knew the answer was intimidation, but who would have thought Jeff Roe would admit it?
Check out The Source, Jeff Roe's blog. There's a post entitled Is Conservative Criticism Correcting the Courts? Yes, there has been lots of criticism. Yes, judges are human and have to think in the back of their mind that they could be next on the hit list for simply doing their job. The Source goes about making the case that conservative criticism has effected two recent decisions by a Cole County judge.
As someone who idealizes a judge's role as to be fair, neutral, apply the law and precedent, I hope that no judge has to consider the political ramifications of a legal decision. That would be, dare I say, judicial activism. At least Jeff Roe, Matt Blunt and his bullies are being honest - they want to intimidate judges to rule their way. I sure hope that is not what is being taught in civics classes.
4 comments:
Well, at least we know what they want. Changing the rule of law through intimidation sounds real nice. Bring Hitler back!!
I’ll tell you why Jeff Roe would attack Judge Brown. Judge Brown has unconstitutionally invalidated Acts of the Missouri General Assembly. Yes, I said unconstitutionally, aka; illegally.
Judge Brown, and at least two other judges in Cole County, have determined that they have the power to invalidate legislative acts. They have determined that Article V, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution has granted them this authority over the entire State of Missouri.
Article V, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution states; “The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases and matters, civil and criminal. Such courts may issue and determine original remedial writs and shall sit at times and places within the circuit as determined by the circuit court.”
No place in this article is it stated that the circuit court judge has the authority to determine what the law is. The two words that have been claimed to give them this authority are “original jurisdiction”. I looked to Black’s Law Dictionary for a definition, as Black’s is the most recognized dictionary of the legal community. Black’s defines original as; “Primitive; first in order; bearing its own authority and not deriving its authority from an outside source”. Black’s defines jurisdiction as; “The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, or in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. Jurisdiction is a power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate to take cognizance of and determine causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution”.
These two words describe the circuit court as a primitive court that has the constitutional authority to provide remedies to persons according to established law. The circuit court interprets the law; it does not determine what the law is, nor establish the validity of the law. The law is considered to be valid until a court of competent jurisdiction determines that it is not. Further, take another look at the definition of jurisdiction; “persons” are citizens, or corporations, they are not agencies of the government.
Just because you present a challenge as to the validity of something does not mean that the entity hearing the challenge has the authority to determine the validity of the fact being challenged.
The circuit court is merely the babysitter. A child under their care may bring up a good reason for staying up past the 9:00 pm deadline set by the parents, but the babysitter does not have the authority to deviate from the rules established by the parents, unless the parents expressly permitted the babysitter to make that determination.
In Missouri, we do have a court that has been granted the authority to determine the validity of an Act of the Missouri General Assembly. That court is the Missouri Supreme Court. Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution specifically allows the Missouri Supreme Court to address the validity of a statute (an Act of the Missouri General Assembly).
Why can’t all courts have the authority to invalidate a statute? If a statute is invalidated, it would have no force or effect throughout the state. That would mean that no other circuit court judge could consider it to be valid. No circuit court judge has authority over another. If another circuit court judge ruled the statute to be valid, why is that judge’s opinion as to the validity not just as correct?
It is very simple. The only court that can invalidate an Act of the Missouri General Assembly must be a court whose decisions are controlling over all other courts; that court is the Missouri Supreme Court.
The teachings of the Missouri Bar agree with this claim.
“The United States Constitution says nothing about the one job the Supreme Court of the United States is most known for today. That is the power to review federal and state laws to determine whether or not they are constitutional. On the other hand, the Missouri Constitution specifically grants the power of judicial review to Missouri Courts:
The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving the validity…of a statute or provision of the constitution of this state… (Article V, Section 3.)”
You can look this up for yourself at:
http://www.mobar.org/teach/judicial_review.doc
The term “judicial activism” is generally bestowed upon the courts that have the authority to invalidate the Acts of our Elected Representatives, it must also be a label used on those that unconstitutionally act as if they had that authority.
As for being placed on the “hit list”, Missouri has not impeached a judge since the 60’s. In 1972, the Commission on Retirement, Removal, and Discipline of Judges was created. This commission was originally created to address unethical actions taken by Missouri’s judges. Unfortunately, this commission has just become a clearing house for corruption. In 1987, the Missouri Supreme Court created a rule that prevented the public from viewing any complaints that were filed against judges, unless the “stacked” commission took formal action against the judge. The acronym for this commission is C.R.R.D., but even the Missouri Bar calls it C.R.U.D. Take a look at the article on page two of the Saint Louis Bar Journal written by Lynn Ann Vogel, former President of the Bar Association of Metropolitan Saint Louis, at:
http://www.bamsl.org/members/barjournal/SPRING%2007.pdf
My claim is really very simple. No individual in this country can create an Act of the General Assembly, and no individual in this country can invalidate an Act of the General Assembly.
We don't let an individual judge determine whether or not a trial judge erred. Therefore, why would we let an individual trial judge determine if the General Assembly erred?
We currently have over 300 years of combined legal experience in the Missouri General Assembly, and that doesn't include their staff. Why would we ever think that an individual judge, who may only have a year or so of legal experience, would have more wisdom as to the constitutionality of a statute than the 300 years of experience that created it? It not only doesn't make sense, it is unconstitutional. As this is currently occurring in Missouri, it has established a dictatorship.
Find out more about the Missouri Dictators at: http://www.kahunah.com
Whistleblower,
There is a problem with your argument. Article V, Section 3 gives the Supreme Court "appellate jurisdiction" over the validity of statutes. The definition of appellate jurisdiction is the power to review and revise the decision of a lower court. Thus, before the Supreme Court can review the validity of a statute there has to be a lower court decision.
Anonymous…
Thanks for taking the time to point this out. I do agree that the Missouri Supreme Court is a court of appellate jurisdiction, and not original jurisdiction.
This fact may have influenced the circuit court judges to make their unconstitutional rulings, as no one, including judges, wants to be told that they erred.
Appellate courts are established to review errors of law. This does not mean that the judge that followed the law that the appellate court found to be invalid was a bad judge. It may mean that the law created for the judge to follow was flawed. If a statute is unconstitutional, and the circuit court ruled in accordance with that statute, that would be an error of law. The fact that it is the validity of a statute that is being questioned would give the Missouri Supreme Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
Circuit court judges lawfully determine the constitutionality of many things presented to them. They may determine that trying a person for a certain crime would be considered double jeopardy. Common law could be introduced in a plea that would be considered repugnant to the U.S. or Missouri Constitutions. Circuit Court Judges have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of these items. Acts of the Missouri General Assembly are created by a separate branch of the government. Telling the Legislative Branch “you can’t do that” is not something that was constitutionally left for a lone judge to do.
If a circuit court judge had the authority to invalidate an Act of the General Assembly, a provision would surely exist for the disposition of that statute after the circuit court judge ruled it to be invalid. No such provision exists. A provision does exist for the disposition of a statute when the Missouri Supreme Court or a federal court of competent jurisdiction invalidates a statute. You can find this provision in the Revised Statutes of Missouri 3.066.
I hope this answer is an adequate response to your contention. I would be happy to address any others that you present.
This is not an easy fight. The Bar does not want to expose the fact that some judges are overstepping their authority, especially since it has been going on for a long time. Those that do respond do more of a “blog and run”. I have invited all of them to a videotaped debate on the issue, but none will attend. I am gaining support. I have attorneys, paralegals, and law school professors that support my position. However, they are all afraid of retribution should they come forward at this point.
Post a Comment