A Judicial Pacht

The Court is back in session.

You may be seated.

During the last session of this [Dis?]honorable Court, we entertained a discourse surrounding the Buck v. Bell case. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Court was proven immoral. Such rhetoric and debate shall be perpetuated during this judicial sitting.

Now, an evil pact, a judicial pacht: Imbler v. Pachtman.

It is often stated that no one is above the law in the United States. It should be stated that this is a lie.

There is a dirty secret lurking in the depths of the judicial system. It is called judicial immunity, and is an impediment.

Through the case, the Supreme Court established the precedent that incompetent judicial officials get excused for infringing upon the rights established in the document they swore to uphold. The actions resulting in the case occurred in 1961. Paul Imbler was convicted by three eyewitness to have murdered a grocery store clerk. However, the District Attorney, Richard Pachtman, knowingly utilized a faulty testimony. After this came to light, Paul Imbler filed a suit against Pachtmas. Paul Imbler believed that his rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 were violated. The case made it to the Supreme Court.

Eventually,  the Court came to an unanimous decision in favor of Pachtman.

This decision highlights the idea that the judicial branch of government can’t be touched. This idea contrasts Alexander Hamilton’s belief, inscribed in Federalist #78, that the judiciary is the least dangerous branch of government.  However, the judiciary has become a behemoth of bureaucracy.

This behemoth is untamed by the natural order and replacement that comes along with election cycles. Article 3 of the United States Constitution dictates that all justices remain in their positions as long as they are in good standing. Therefore, the judiciary system is, and has been, the most tyrannical on some occasions. This is not common law England where the “king can do no wrong”. The judiciary is not exempt from public pressure. If qualified statesmen are not always at the helm, it is our civic responsibility to hold those in power at bay.

But, how can we do this if the system in place protects itself and preserves tyranny?

We must remain active in pressuring the government to obey our will. If we are the people, and our government is for and by the people, the government should obey us.

The judiciary has a responsibility to make civic engagement possible, as do all of the branches. The aforementioned case does not do this.

Within the context of both of the previous cases: Buck v. Bell and Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court has failed supremely. They have ignored the rights of people to their own bodies and the right to hold public officials accountable. Their actions have violated the pinnacle of democracy: liberty.

In the upcoming sessions, the Supreme Court will be held under the intense light of investigation. For too long the Court has escaped our view, operating without media coverage.

The Court will now recess.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar