I agree. An alternative is that for any defendant with over a certain number of violent offenses that the judge releases, the judge must allow that defendant to live with him/her for at least a month.
Excellent and timely article Mr. AMUSE. As a common man, taxpayer and (mostly) law abiding citizen I have become more and more frustrated at the decisions coming from courthouses across our nation.
All the comments thus far have touched on one aspect or another of what I would say, thus my comment is already written.
However.
What I see in my state of Oregon is a well orchestrated system of judges 'retiring' just before their term is up, the governor appoints a replacement judge, that judge then runs as the incumbent. Rarely contested. Information in the voters pamphlet is minimal, judges are listed as 'non-partisan'. It's impossible to determine their life philosophy like all other candidates for elected office and their accomplishments not identified.
When the elected judge is tired or wants to advance he retires and it rinse and repeat. Lawyers won't run against a judge for obvious reasons. It is a fixed system as described elsewhere in comments.
The legal system is broken. The political system is broken. The country, in part, is teetering on collapse because of lack of judicial performance and common sense. After all, what is a woman?
I really wanted to work in the joke that I would rather be judged by most bartenders than a judge but then AOC came to mind... Probably says more about our voters/voting system than anything else.
They could allow the victims' families to collect and compel the State to pay, whereupon the Chief Justice or Governor could take action against the judge if it was egregious, like bump him/her down to traffic court, and eventually out the door.
This is tricky constitutionally because the judge is supposed to have no personal stake in the outcome for the accused. I’m as disgusted as anyone by the judges who bond out dangerous career criminals, but I wonder whether a legislative fix that reduces the judge’s discretion to grant bond would work better? I know, trying to get legislators to legislate, funny right?!
Despite the honest responses from the ethically minded attorneys above, and considering the politicization of the judicial branch we have witnessed, some sort of corrective mechanism is now required. What that is, and what form it takes is a matter of debate, however, clearly something must be done and quickly.
Judges are the dregs of the legal system. Their arrogance causes them to run for office, and, in many cases, name recognition gets them elected, not their understanding of the law or experience. Locally, a twenty-five-year-old female ran as a municipal judge and was elected based on her family's name and their money. Lawyers hated appearing before her because she had no idea what she was doing.
The murder of Iryna Zarutska was horrifying because we saw it as it happened. If anyone stepped up to help, her life might have been saved. No one did, but lots of people on the train captured it on their phones. It's not just the judges who are worthless; the majority of the people are, too.
Isn’t it DEMOCRATS WHO SCREAM “ NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW !” Yet court after court in state after state have judges who simply ignore the defendant in front of them because politics is at the heart of their decisions + innocent people pay with their lives for the judges lack of integrity ! We are taught from childhood to be responsible for your actions and yet judges have “ immunity “ for theirs , THAT MUST CHANGE NOW ! If not a C W that will make 1861-65 look like a mud fight in the back yard is coming and Judges won’t like the outcome !
Something has to give before folks affected by this sort of judicial malpractice seek rough justice on their own. It's a wonder it hasn't happened already.
Thank for providing this excellent report! You are exactly correct! Not a legal eagle here but have had enough experience with the judicial system over many years. I came to the same conclusion years ago. You definitely clarified for those who do not know & those who think they do what the truth is in this matter.
I think the bartender/judge comparison is apples and oranges but I get your point. It seems to me though the solution is to remove the bail decision from judicial jurisdiction or assign it to a specific docket. Akin to a drug court. That judge would face re-election and would not want to take responsibility for the illustrations you provide. FWIW I practiced criminal law for decades and the changes since Ferguson are astounding to me. I am reminded of the old joke, do you know the difference between God and a district (trial level) judge? God does not think he is a district judge.
Why this will never happen—why the entire proposal is a polite fantasy that collides head-on with how the legal profession actually works.
I practiced law through five different decades. I once believed in the profession the way some people believe in church. But that changed. I finally saw what it really is: not a noble calling, but a closed guild that functions like a modern-day cabal, a legal mafia, a self-perpetuating union whose first and only commandment is mutual protection. Everyone inside the tent—judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, bar associations—watches each other’s back, and the public foots the bill in blood and treasure.
Absolute judicial immunity is not some timeless principle of justice. It is a judge-made shield, expanded by the Supreme Court in cases like Bradley v. Fisher and Stump v. Sparkman, that insulates even the most grotesque failures. The logic is simple and self-serving: if judges had to fear personal lawsuits, they might hesitate to do their jobs. Fair enough on paper. But the same rationale is never extended to the bartender, the doctor, the truck driver, or the police officer. Only the guild gets the absolute pass. The rest of us live under ordinary negligence rules because we are not gatekeepers who control the rules.
That is the dirty secret. The people who write the laws, interpret the laws, and enforce the laws are almost all lawyers. Legislatures are stuffed with them. Bar associations lobby them. Judges—former lawyers who climbed the same ladder—review whatever modest reform bills squeak through. The system is a closed loop of mutual back-scratching. Threaten personal liability for judges and you are not merely challenging a doctrine; you are attacking the guild’s core business model. The howls of “judicial independence!” and “chilling effect!” will be instant, loud, and effective. Trial lawyers who sue everyone else for a living will suddenly discover the sacred importance of “finality.” Defense bars will wring their hands about “frivolous suits.” And any statute that somehow passes will be quietly interpreted into irrelevance by the very judges it was meant to restrain.
Look at the evidence in plain sight. Every horror story the essay recites happened on our watch—recently, publicly, with bodies left behind. Darrell Brooks in Waukesha. Randy Lewis with sixty-seven arrests. Devan Jordan released twice and killing twice. Not one judge faced a civil dollar of accountability. Not one family got its day in court on the merits. The system’s response was the usual shrug: press conferences, ethics complaints that go nowhere, maybe a legislative study that dies in committee. Meanwhile, the bartender who misreads a Friday-night crowd still risks financial ruin. That is not an “asymmetry.” That is the guild protecting its own while the rest of society absorbs the cost.
Reform proposals like the federal JAIL Act or state-level “Iryna’s Laws” are introduced precisely because the current regime offers zero accountability. They will be debated, watered down, and—more often than not—defeated or neutered by the same fraternity that benefits from the status quo. The gatekeepers are not going to pay the gatekeepers to open the gate.
I lost every last shred of respect for this profession years ago. What began as a love affair with the rule of law ended in the recognition that the “rule of law” is too often just the rule of lawyers—self-interested, self-protecting, and insulated from the very consequences they impose on everyone else. The essay’s moral logic is impeccable. The political reality is that the guild will never allow it to matter. The disparity is not a bug in the system. It is the system working exactly as designed: insiders shielded, outsiders sacrificed.
That is not judicial independence. It is institutionalized impunity wearing robes and speaking in Latin. And until the public stops revering the courthouse as a temple and starts seeing it for the self-dealing cartel it has become, the bodies will keep piling up while the guild keeps smiling from the bench.
*FWIW: This is not written out of spite or resentment. I had a marvelous career in the law. It put my children through college and medical school, afforded me a wonderful living, and I was able to retire early. It can be navigated properly with prudence and skepticism. I never bought into the notion that it was anything other than a business for me to make money, feed my children, and accumulate resources. Most lawyers have locked themselves into the cognitive prison of mainstream narrative and will never admit these things.
More or less true. Also true is the fact that the Constitution is fake law. I see a text which begins with a bold lie about the identity of the people who imposed it (fewer than 50% did any ordaining). Also, the preamble implies that absolutely everyone has authority to impose a government. No one is excluded, not even children, drug addicts, or habitual racketeers called lawyers. The scam does not end there however.
Article VII presupposes its own establishment before both "Ratification" and "Establishment". In fact, should the Con ever become a law, A7 will be superfluous. Meanwhile it's moot, for A7 is not a restatement of law. So there's no justification for having included the article. The primary purpose of Article VII is to implant a delusion in the thoughts of readers.
Historians and philosophers of the distant future will, if they are competent, look back upon the USA as a monstrosity supported by scoundrels and retards who poisoned and bombed much of world for what is arguably the greatest fraud since the writing of the torahs thousands of years ago. Maybe the historians will notice also that apologists of these two frauds were partners in organized crime until they destroyed theirselves or the rest of the world united to stop them by force.
I agree. An alternative is that for any defendant with over a certain number of violent offenses that the judge releases, the judge must allow that defendant to live with him/her for at least a month.
Excellent and timely article Mr. AMUSE. As a common man, taxpayer and (mostly) law abiding citizen I have become more and more frustrated at the decisions coming from courthouses across our nation.
All the comments thus far have touched on one aspect or another of what I would say, thus my comment is already written.
However.
What I see in my state of Oregon is a well orchestrated system of judges 'retiring' just before their term is up, the governor appoints a replacement judge, that judge then runs as the incumbent. Rarely contested. Information in the voters pamphlet is minimal, judges are listed as 'non-partisan'. It's impossible to determine their life philosophy like all other candidates for elected office and their accomplishments not identified.
When the elected judge is tired or wants to advance he retires and it rinse and repeat. Lawyers won't run against a judge for obvious reasons. It is a fixed system as described elsewhere in comments.
The legal system is broken. The political system is broken. The country, in part, is teetering on collapse because of lack of judicial performance and common sense. After all, what is a woman?
I really wanted to work in the joke that I would rather be judged by most bartenders than a judge but then AOC came to mind... Probably says more about our voters/voting system than anything else.
They could allow the victims' families to collect and compel the State to pay, whereupon the Chief Justice or Governor could take action against the judge if it was egregious, like bump him/her down to traffic court, and eventually out the door.
There is only so much space in jail.
Given the high volume of cases, there is a 100% chance a judge is going to release someone that they shouldn’t have.
That’s just human fallibility and math.
Great post, & I didn't read all of it.
All judges should be held accountable for their "clemency".
It's not clemency, rather it is abject stupidity!
As a judge, they should all be held accountable, to a subsequent offense.
They let the killer go.
IDGAS about the reasoning...
It's on the judges.
Just my take...
This is why tar and feathers and the guillotine were invented…
This is tricky constitutionally because the judge is supposed to have no personal stake in the outcome for the accused. I’m as disgusted as anyone by the judges who bond out dangerous career criminals, but I wonder whether a legislative fix that reduces the judge’s discretion to grant bond would work better? I know, trying to get legislators to legislate, funny right?!
Maddening indeed.
Not funny. Maddening!
Despite the honest responses from the ethically minded attorneys above, and considering the politicization of the judicial branch we have witnessed, some sort of corrective mechanism is now required. What that is, and what form it takes is a matter of debate, however, clearly something must be done and quickly.
As suggested below, everyone should read: https://dejuremedia.substack.com/p/the-qualified-immunity-deception
Judges are the dregs of the legal system. Their arrogance causes them to run for office, and, in many cases, name recognition gets them elected, not their understanding of the law or experience. Locally, a twenty-five-year-old female ran as a municipal judge and was elected based on her family's name and their money. Lawyers hated appearing before her because she had no idea what she was doing.
The murder of Iryna Zarutska was horrifying because we saw it as it happened. If anyone stepped up to help, her life might have been saved. No one did, but lots of people on the train captured it on their phones. It's not just the judges who are worthless; the majority of the people are, too.
Isn’t it DEMOCRATS WHO SCREAM “ NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW !” Yet court after court in state after state have judges who simply ignore the defendant in front of them because politics is at the heart of their decisions + innocent people pay with their lives for the judges lack of integrity ! We are taught from childhood to be responsible for your actions and yet judges have “ immunity “ for theirs , THAT MUST CHANGE NOW ! If not a C W that will make 1861-65 look like a mud fight in the back yard is coming and Judges won’t like the outcome !
Something has to give before folks affected by this sort of judicial malpractice seek rough justice on their own. It's a wonder it hasn't happened already.
Thank for providing this excellent report! You are exactly correct! Not a legal eagle here but have had enough experience with the judicial system over many years. I came to the same conclusion years ago. You definitely clarified for those who do not know & those who think they do what the truth is in this matter.
🎯🎯🎯
I think the bartender/judge comparison is apples and oranges but I get your point. It seems to me though the solution is to remove the bail decision from judicial jurisdiction or assign it to a specific docket. Akin to a drug court. That judge would face re-election and would not want to take responsibility for the illustrations you provide. FWIW I practiced criminal law for decades and the changes since Ferguson are astounding to me. I am reminded of the old joke, do you know the difference between God and a district (trial level) judge? God does not think he is a district judge.
As a part-time bartender, I'd have to say that's a good question. Though, Professor Alexander Reinert had something to say about this:
https://dejuremedia.substack.com/p/the-qualified-immunity-deception
Why this will never happen—why the entire proposal is a polite fantasy that collides head-on with how the legal profession actually works.
I practiced law through five different decades. I once believed in the profession the way some people believe in church. But that changed. I finally saw what it really is: not a noble calling, but a closed guild that functions like a modern-day cabal, a legal mafia, a self-perpetuating union whose first and only commandment is mutual protection. Everyone inside the tent—judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, bar associations—watches each other’s back, and the public foots the bill in blood and treasure.
Absolute judicial immunity is not some timeless principle of justice. It is a judge-made shield, expanded by the Supreme Court in cases like Bradley v. Fisher and Stump v. Sparkman, that insulates even the most grotesque failures. The logic is simple and self-serving: if judges had to fear personal lawsuits, they might hesitate to do their jobs. Fair enough on paper. But the same rationale is never extended to the bartender, the doctor, the truck driver, or the police officer. Only the guild gets the absolute pass. The rest of us live under ordinary negligence rules because we are not gatekeepers who control the rules.
That is the dirty secret. The people who write the laws, interpret the laws, and enforce the laws are almost all lawyers. Legislatures are stuffed with them. Bar associations lobby them. Judges—former lawyers who climbed the same ladder—review whatever modest reform bills squeak through. The system is a closed loop of mutual back-scratching. Threaten personal liability for judges and you are not merely challenging a doctrine; you are attacking the guild’s core business model. The howls of “judicial independence!” and “chilling effect!” will be instant, loud, and effective. Trial lawyers who sue everyone else for a living will suddenly discover the sacred importance of “finality.” Defense bars will wring their hands about “frivolous suits.” And any statute that somehow passes will be quietly interpreted into irrelevance by the very judges it was meant to restrain.
Look at the evidence in plain sight. Every horror story the essay recites happened on our watch—recently, publicly, with bodies left behind. Darrell Brooks in Waukesha. Randy Lewis with sixty-seven arrests. Devan Jordan released twice and killing twice. Not one judge faced a civil dollar of accountability. Not one family got its day in court on the merits. The system’s response was the usual shrug: press conferences, ethics complaints that go nowhere, maybe a legislative study that dies in committee. Meanwhile, the bartender who misreads a Friday-night crowd still risks financial ruin. That is not an “asymmetry.” That is the guild protecting its own while the rest of society absorbs the cost.
Reform proposals like the federal JAIL Act or state-level “Iryna’s Laws” are introduced precisely because the current regime offers zero accountability. They will be debated, watered down, and—more often than not—defeated or neutered by the same fraternity that benefits from the status quo. The gatekeepers are not going to pay the gatekeepers to open the gate.
I lost every last shred of respect for this profession years ago. What began as a love affair with the rule of law ended in the recognition that the “rule of law” is too often just the rule of lawyers—self-interested, self-protecting, and insulated from the very consequences they impose on everyone else. The essay’s moral logic is impeccable. The political reality is that the guild will never allow it to matter. The disparity is not a bug in the system. It is the system working exactly as designed: insiders shielded, outsiders sacrificed.
That is not judicial independence. It is institutionalized impunity wearing robes and speaking in Latin. And until the public stops revering the courthouse as a temple and starts seeing it for the self-dealing cartel it has become, the bodies will keep piling up while the guild keeps smiling from the bench.
*FWIW: This is not written out of spite or resentment. I had a marvelous career in the law. It put my children through college and medical school, afforded me a wonderful living, and I was able to retire early. It can be navigated properly with prudence and skepticism. I never bought into the notion that it was anything other than a business for me to make money, feed my children, and accumulate resources. Most lawyers have locked themselves into the cognitive prison of mainstream narrative and will never admit these things.
More or less true. Also true is the fact that the Constitution is fake law. I see a text which begins with a bold lie about the identity of the people who imposed it (fewer than 50% did any ordaining). Also, the preamble implies that absolutely everyone has authority to impose a government. No one is excluded, not even children, drug addicts, or habitual racketeers called lawyers. The scam does not end there however.
Article VII presupposes its own establishment before both "Ratification" and "Establishment". In fact, should the Con ever become a law, A7 will be superfluous. Meanwhile it's moot, for A7 is not a restatement of law. So there's no justification for having included the article. The primary purpose of Article VII is to implant a delusion in the thoughts of readers.
Historians and philosophers of the distant future will, if they are competent, look back upon the USA as a monstrosity supported by scoundrels and retards who poisoned and bombed much of world for what is arguably the greatest fraud since the writing of the torahs thousands of years ago. Maybe the historians will notice also that apologists of these two frauds were partners in organized crime until they destroyed theirselves or the rest of the world united to stop them by force.
Brilliant!