What are the Legal Consequences of Bad Judicial Decisions?
Per current public debate, the short answer to the legal consequences of a bad judicial decision is either Judicial Impeachment or an Appeal to a higher court. For over a century or so prior, the public has come to understand that the proper course of action for a bad judicial decision is to appeal to a higher court. After all, the idea of why an appeal court is even commissioned is due to the prevailing persuasion that circuit judges, in a federal appeals court, are a recognized cut above lower court judges. In fact, federal circuit court judge roles are few and far between. Even more to the point, circuit judges, as part of the confirmation process, are scrutinized, much more so, during confirmation to a much greater degree than lower court judges. There might be good reason for such scrutiny, as the appeal court is the last stop in terms of civil rights in the United States.
What about the United States Supreme Court?
What about the United States Supreme Court? Well it exists. At the same time, contrary to what the public is led to believe, the United States Supreme Court is a court of discretion. Basically what this means is that a party does not have a right to be heard in the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court hand picks the appeals it will hear, which on average is only about 1-3 percent of the appeals presented to it via Writ of Certiorari.
There are few exceptions to this rule of discretion, one of which is legal disputes between states are heard by the United States Supreme Court, direct issues dealing with the sovereignty of the United States, separation of powers issues, and generally speaking federal agencies have a quasi-right (in the eyes of the United States Supreme Court) to be heard before the United States Supreme Court. As to the latter, not all federal agencies are equal and possess such a quasi-right to be heard before the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, the United States Supreme Court hears a substantial percentage of appeals involving a branch of the government, especially Congress, much more so than virtually all other appeals.
The United States Supreme Court, according to the Constitution, is a co-equal branch of government – so it alleges when convenient; but, the record shows that the United States Supreme Court is much more about appearances than substance. Who is the current leader of the United States Supreme Court? That would be Chief Justice John Roberts – a Republican who some tend to believe is more or less the deciding vote in the court given his history of selectively deciding against expected views on certain cases, thereby casting the appearance as being impartial.
At the end of the day, though, when presented with the quandary of how to deal with judges who are clearly out of line or who may even engage in criminal conduct, Justice Roberts would say the proper course of action is via an appeal, since according to Justice Robert’s ideology the upstanding courts can and will adhere to the Constitution and render impartial decisions. That sounds really good, like a well crafted public relations script. So let's hear what Chief Justice Roberts, recently, had to say about judicial impeachment -- the mere thought of which is taboo, since judges, in reality, see themselves as superior and above the law. But wait, aren’t judges part of a co-equal branch of government?
Quote:
“Roberts, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority, rebuked Trump for his impeachment call. Roberts said an appeal, not impeachment, was the appropriate response when disagreeing with a judge's decision.” Reuters
So why the scrutiny of Justice Roberts’s statement(s) before the press? For one, Justice Roberts advocates the courts correcting its own errs. But what about when the courts intentionally engage in judicial misconduct and/or criminal behavior: Then what?
What Happens When Judicial Misconduct and Party Bias Prevails?
Betrayal of the public’s trust. That is exactly what occurred in the attached brief, below, in the 9th Circuit court of Appeals. The Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et. al., did not even appear since the judge(s) {Donna M. Ryu (chief magistrate judge) and James Donato (President Barack Obama appointed district judge)} pleaded for the non-appearing defendant(s) -- which is judicial misconduct in of itself. Why? Well, it is common knowledge that federal courts are notorious for advising the everyday citizen, who may appear in court for whatever reason, that the court has no power to give a party legal advice or act as his or her attorney. Ironically, when the stature of a party comes into play, ante, then mysteriously, the court is cloaked in the power to act as a fellow judge’s attorney or to give legal advice via ‘slip of the tongue’ legal opinions interpreted to support fellow judges.
In the lower court, the judge falsely and in bad faith claimed that Well Fargo Bank, N.A. is not a citizen of California and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of Northern District of California federal court, despite the fact that the very same defendant Well Fargo is embroiled in a derivative class action fraud case in the exact same court opened a mere months before the underlying case below. On top of that, Wells Fargo has had its corporate offices in San Francisco, CA for more than twenty years.
Let’s call this what it is – a partial court system in an extremely far left district which is more than eager to do the bidding of big corps, like Wells Fargo, and to make the case go away. The proper venue was in San Francisco, CA – which is a predominately white venue outfitted with very far left leaning politics. The underlying case; however, was moved to the Oakland venue (from the beginning) which is known to be a Black controlled venue with, also, very far left leaning politics from a Black perspective.
Piercing together the facts: What do the Facts Say?
Why was the case against San Francisco, CA defendant Well Fargo, who has its corporate offices in San Franciso, moved to Oakland, CA, at the outset, which ultimately gave rise to the underlying judicial impeachment or appeal question? No one seems to know or is otherwise willing to demonstrate why so. And what about the appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? The case magically disappeared – until Legalhotwater went public with what goes on in the 9th circuit court of appeals. Yet another example of the power of public awareness, which Legalhotwater spearheads, especially with abuse of power, and public corruption issues affecting the lives of everyday people.
In any event, who stood to gain by the conduct of the 9th circuit court making cases disappear from the docket? The Trump Administration or the Biden Administration holdovers? And what about ‘Black Ops,’ where does that enter the picture, if at all? And what about the role of the United States Supreme Court engaging in one or more ethics issues, and judicial bias-misconduct, related to an intertwined Writ of Certiorari (from a Florida action involving a President Trump appointed district judge Roy K. Atwater) which the Justice Robert’s Supreme Court refused to file – despite the United States Supreme Court’s own rules? These are important questions, since according to Supreme Court’s own rules, the court is required to file virtually all Writs which they refused to do when Legalhotwater tendered its Writ of Certiorari, therein, implicating politicians all the way up to the President, engaging in abuse of power and/or public corruption. Clearly, the inference is that Justice Robert’s talks the talk quite well but knows little about walking the walk with respect to federal judgeship. And the elephant in the room, which also speaks to the integrity of Justice Roberts, is that federal judges believe they are superior to the general public and as a consequence answer to no one. History has demonstrated time and again, that he has no boss, acting in the business of public office is most certainly bound for absolute power – sooner versus later. And absolute power corrupts.
So let’s ask Justice Roberts:
What is the proper course of action – Impeachment or Appeal?