J.A.I.L. had better start to dread the Judges.

A hot tip from a reader today on the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Act:
Yesterday, the South Dakota judiciary fired a shot across the bow of Amendment E. In a lecture at the law school Judge Arthur Rusch, presiding judge of the 1st Judicial Circuit, said that Amendment E is a, “direct attack on the judiciary,” of South Dakota. Judge Rusch went on to say that, “they [Amendment E supporters] don’t want a court system,” in South Dakota. The Judge could not understand why people would want to undermine the judiciary.

Strong words from the bench. Straight from the Judge’s lips to your blog!
Strong words indeed. I've always been of the opinion that even if J.A.I.L. passes, it's legality is going to be challenged in court. And who is going to make the call on it's legality? Well, that would be judges, wouldn't it?

In the case of fighting a hostile Judiciary, now.. where is it that they would seek redress? That would be through a change in laws. Oops. Sorry. You've already burned your bridges there.

A hostile Legislature, and a hostile Judicuary. You J.A.I.L. supporters are so screwed.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I've always been of the opinion that even if J.A.I.L. passes, it's legality is going to be challenged in court. And who is going to make the call on it's legality? Well, that would be judges, wouldn't it?

Actually, no. Not exactly.

The way J.A.I.L. reads and what Branson has said is that no judge may hear any appeal about J.A.I.L. or from a J.A.I.L. provision. Only the Special Grand Jury is allowed to do so.

The basis for this according to Branson is Section 22 which says "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."

And since all the judges in South Dakota would be "under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury", say goodbye to any state judge hearing any such case.

And what happens if a South Dakota judge does hear such an appeal or such a case challening J.A.I.L.? Branson and Section 22 tells us.

"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."

Yeah PP, it really is that bad.
PP said…
Anon, I'll disagree a little.

When I say legality, I'm talking about the constiutionality. And just because the JAIL law might say that judges can't hear appeals from the JAIL board, if someone challenges the legality of the JAIL Measure itself, I'm saying it would go to the SD Supreme Court first.
Anonymous said…
And just because the JAIL law might say that judges can't hear appeals from the JAIL board, if someone challenges the legality of the JAIL Measure itself, I'm saying it would go to the SD Supreme Court first.

No, no, no PP! I am ashamed of you!

Don't you know the SD Supreme Court is part of the New World Order conspiracy involving bankers, the United Nations, and the Federal Reserve?

http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2005/2005-06-08.html

I mean come on now PP! J.A.I.L. Section 22 is clear. No appeals. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury can hear any appeal of it. The "Five-Star National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief" has so decreed it PP!

http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2005/2005-12-24.html

Branson did sayeth:

3. You say, Duffy, that J.A.I.L. is an "unworkable solution that almost certainly would be struck down immediately in a court challenge" I am ahead of you, Duffy, of this one. Yes, when I wrote J.A.I.L. I knew it would be the chief enemy of most judges within the system, and whose greatest desire would be to strike down J.A.I.L. just as the courts have done with so many other initiatives passed by the People. This is precisely the very reason you find the words in paragraph 22 of the South Dakota Initiative, "Challenges. 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."

Now let me give you a little lesson in law. The jurisdiction of every court is established by law. Where the law limits the jurisdiction of a court, that court has no jurisdiction to rule there upon. This principle is true even of the Constitution as it affects the United States Supreme Court. Article III, Sec. 1 creates the Supreme Court, but Sec. 2, Clause 3 establishes the power of Congress to create limitations and exceptions upon the Supreme Court.

Just so, by the People of South Dakota Amending their Constitution through the passage of J.A.I.L. as provided for in their Constitution, they thereby draw a very specific limitation upon the jurisdiction of the courts of South Dakota which they cannot trespass without falling under the sword of the provisions of that Amendment. No court may create or define its own jurisdiction that contravenes legislation that forbids its assertion of such jurisdiction.

Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of every federal court in this nation to the sidewalk around the building if they so chose to do so. Just so, the People of South Dakota have the power to limit the jurisdiction of the S.D. courts accordingly, and they will have so done by passing J.A.I.L. into law as a constitutional amendment.
Anonymous said…
For the humor impaired, I am making fun and mocking Branson's position and in so doing expressing support of PP's, namely, that J.A.I.L. if by some fluke approved of by voters will be struck down by a SD court and/or a Federal court shortly thereafter.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th