South Dakota sounds like a scary place.

Writing in Slate, Bert Brandenburg of The Justice at Stake Campaign examines the latest controversy regarding judicial independence:

The newest front in the war on the courts is being fought in South Dakota, where, in the shadow of Mt. Rushmore, a group called "J.A.I.L. 4 Judges" is promoting one of the most radical threats to justice this side of the Spanish Inquisition. It's extreme and it's incoherent, but it's got more than 40,000 petition signatures—and it will go to the state's voters as a constitutional amendment in November. A national network of supporters is waiting in the wings, threatening to export the revolution to other states if they do well this fall.

The group's proposed measure would wipe out a basic doctrine called judicial immunity that dates back to the 13th century, protecting judges from personal liability for doing their job ruling on the cases before them. A special grand jury—essentially a fourth branch of government—would be created to indict judges for a string of bizarre offenses that include "deliberate disregard of material facts," "judicial acts without jurisdiction," and "blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case," along with judicial failure to impanel a jury for infractions as minor as a dog-license violation. After three such "convictions," the judge would be fired and docked half of his or her retirement benefits for good measure.

Abortion for religious virgins only earlier this month, and now reverting back to 13th century legal precedent. Sounds like a great place!
3,602 views 4 replies
Reply #1 Top
That would take an entire amending of the constitution. It's about as much of a threat as PETA forcing us all to be vegetarians; sorry to dismiss your outrage.

This is the same tactic the far right uses. They have a conflict in, say, california, and so they go off and find some total wacko and characterize all of california as being that way. Slate is all pissy about abortion "rights" and so they want to heap ridicule on South Dakota, since they can't make an argument beyond just insisting they are graced with "truth".
Reply #2 Top
They have a conflict in, say, california, and so they go off and find some total wacko and characterize all of california as being that way.


Unfortunately it's not just one wacko, it's 40,000 and counting.

Reply #3 Top
heh, you don't wanna start comparing the wacko population in South Dakota to that in California. You're side of the equation would end up a lot worse off...
Reply #4 Top
You're side of the equation would end up a lot worse off...


And a wacko recall of a governor to prove it.