Just HOW Widespread is Judicial Misconduct, in the U.S.?...

Just HOW Widespread is Judicial Misconduct, in the U.S.?...
.
.
I recently saw comments on a post I had up on the Taos Terror suspects and the links between the father of Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and Linda Sarsour and a roup embraced by the DNC, "Jummah at the DNC," about a New Mexico judge released the suspects on a new cash bond.

Someone posted that it was coveted on Fox News. I don't watch ANY televised "news" in America. I do know that Liberals/Progressives reject Fox News the way Conservatives reject CNN, NBC, the NY Times and WaPo.

I reject them all and I, unlike those who reject some, know the difference between "news" and COMMENTARY/opinion.

I very much LIKE the COMMENTARY of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and I DO NOT much like the COMMENTARY of CNN, NBC, the NY Times and WaPo.

ALL politics, ALL political coverage is COMMENTARY/OPINION.

That's why I look for local sources on such stories.

At any rate, it seems true that Albuquerque Judge, Sarah Backus (yes, let the "Mrs. Magoo" jokes fly...Jim Backus was the voice of the immortal cartoon character "Mr. Magoo") DID indeed release the defendants in the case on a no cash (signature) bond. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.abqjournal.com/1208891/judge-getting-threats-over-ruling-in-taos-compound-case.html/amp)

Turns out Ms. Backus appears to be a rather freewheeling judge when it comes to violent offenders. She's often released violent offenders on low, or no bail, so this is sort of, "par for the course" for Mrs. Magoo.

I generally DON'T much like judicial discretion. One murder suspect in Albuquerque getting low bail and one in Texas getting no bail is NOT "equal justice before the law."

In my view, the law should be prescribed I'm a set of strictly adhered to mathematical analytics.

For instance, in most assaults, someone initiated the violence. That person is generally the guilty party, UNLESS there are exculpatory circumstances, approached by multiple assailants, delivering the first blow as the other person went into attack mode, etc. Self defense is like obscenity, "We all know it, when we see it."

Outside of the defense of self, life and property, all other violence is criminal.

We seem to have gone off the criminal justice rails with "the war on drugs," punishing many drug crimes more severely than violent crimes. Nothing indicates the incompetence of our entire criminal justice system than that.

So, I could see if Judge Sarah Backus gave low, or no bail for drug offenders, or other non-violent offenders, and I'd be okay with that, but she's apparently doubled down on stupid by going soft on most violent offenders.

It's ironic that in the very same week, West Virginia impeached it's entire State Supreme Court. Of course, ot had nothing to do with judicial judgment, but instead, the legislature impeached all four members of its Supreme Court over the issue of over-spending. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna900461).

Judges constantly self-servingly argue that, "An independent judiciary is vital to a democracy."

FIRST,  that's complete and utter bullshit. A judiciary should be independent of the other branches of government, but that requires even more direct and substantial accountability to the public.

SECOND, we DON'T HAVE "a democracy."

AND THIRD, both the law and the judiciary must always be accountable to THE PEOPLE.

IF a judge is notoriously soft on violent offenders, like the former Palo Alto judge, Aaron Persky (the guy who gave a 6 month sentence to Brock Turner for raping an unconscious woman), a process of public petition, requiring only say, between 5,000 & 10,000 signatures be required to bring that judge to a public judicial review.

In the case of Judge Aaron Perky he was recalled this past June...over two years too late. How much other damage, how many other questionable decisions did he make over the past 30 months? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/judge-persky-brock-turner-recall.amp.html)

A public judicial review would serve two purposes, (1) to scrutinize a given judge's decision to ascertain temperment, potential biases and competence AND (2) to scrutinize the law.

IF a law bars certain procedures, or, for instance, allows for the exclusion of evidence the public does not agree with, etc. the public needs to know that and proper safeguards SHOULD BE in place to allow those laws to be repaired via Public Referendum.

It would seem Sarah Backus should, at the least, have to face such a public judicial review. IF she can demonstrate that the law demands such leniency for violent offenders, then the existing laws are the issue. IF her defense is, "judicial discretion," then both her temperment and competence/"fitness for Office" are in question.

At any rate, the judiciary across the board must be made accountable to the people in a direct and expedient way.
.