Would a Judge who made a radical, pro liberty decision be in mortal danger?

[Pendragon]

I have been reading this guys articles over at constitution.org and while I was skimming his article about the income tax, this just jumped out at me:

http://www.constitution.org/col/0711incometax.txt

Second, we need to put aside the fantasy that court decisions in this field are being made legally. They are not. If they were made legally, the vested interests of most of the more powerful people in this society would be adversely affected to an extreme degree. There is no way such decisions will be made legally, if they are made at all. They are being made politically, which means that when a court is given no logical way to avoid making a legal decision, it will refuse to make it. The stakes are high enough that judges who did otherwise would be in actual danger of being murdered. This is gangster government, folks. A bullet gets further than a valid argument, and it is bullets that would be used if judges started making legal decisions.

Those are pretty strong words. Certainly we can all imagine that powerful people do not want any maverick judge upsetting the applecart, but does anyone really think that a judge could be murdered?

I certainly think anything is possible, but this just seems unlikley.

After all - I am sure there are people who did not want the Emerson decision, but to my knowledge, those judges are still breathing.

In theory, it is probably not that hard to kill a judge if you are really motivated. However, any such action would normally be revenge - for putting away a mob boss or something.

What I am wondering is if anyone believes that a judge somewhere has had to to render a tortured decision against his better judgement - just to avoid being murdered. I cannot imagine it.

Certainly it does seem that when we get really good cases up (like the Rick Stanley case, or Jim Marches CCW case) that we always get a screwey verdict or some other weirdness.

My opinion is that there just are not that many pro liberty judges and that the ones that are out there are probably not as much a part of the establishment. I would bet that cases where liberty hangs in the balance and the status quo is threatened - someone within the judicial system "makes sure" that such a case gets to "the right judge".

Still - makes you think. If this is actually true, or becomes true, then I would say it is time to "clear the bench".

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, remember, the judges are appointed, at the federal level anyway, and are pretty carefully picked over to make sure that few who'd be inclined to make such decisions ever wind up on the bench. Not that many such make it through law school in the first place. They can afford to allow a few "bad" decisions happen on the lower levels, they'll just get reversed on appeal, the way Cumming's decision got reversed by the Fifth circuit.

I could see it becoming an issue if you started to see pro-liberty decisions coming out of the Supreme court, though.

 

[Byron Quick]

Remember the liberal Constitutional attorney Laurence Tribe getting death threats from anti gun people when he came out in a limited manner for an individual right to keep and bear arms?

 

[LonWilson]

What I am wondering is if anyone believes that a judge somewhere has had to to render a tortured decision against his better judgement - just to avoid being murdered. I cannot imagine it.

Believe it. It's widely thought that Jack Miller (of US v. Miller fame) was murdered by government agents in order to sabotage the 2nd amendment case that he had. He would have won if he survived and had a lawyer at the court.

 

[Pendragon]

Yeah - I can see it happening at the SCOTUS level - although if you knocked off one of the righties right now, the balance would remain.

What the heck is going on in Kentucky these days anyway?

All kinds of people being shot at and even killt over various Sheriff races.


Our system only works as long as we remain civil.

As much as the pro liberty crown talks about armed citizens "setting things right", what if we get our way at the ballot and then some of the loony lefties decide to "fix" the election with a few well placed rifle shots?

If the 2A is here to stay, maybe some of the lefties will just start assassinating people with guns and giving everyone a neener neener, guns are everyones rights, how do you like it attitude...?

 

[Jeff White]

It's all about whose in power........

Pendragon,

You've hit on something. Have you noticed that we are getting all kinds of anti-first amendment BS and that the start of the attacks on the second began in earnest after the left was firmly in power?

It's all about keeping power. In the 60s they wore the first amendment like armor so that their dissent was heard everywhere. There wasn't any big push to reign in the second amendment until 1968, after they had secured control of the universities.

Fast forward to present day. The leftists control the universities so those places that a mere 40 years ago were on the front lines of the free speech movement now have very restrictive speech codes, all in the name of politcal correctness and not offending anyone.

They used the judiciary to accomplish what they couldn't at the ballot box. So judicial nominations (once a rubber stamp at the lower court level) are now the most bitterly fought over votes in the Senate. I doubt that any judge fears for his or her life in making a decision. Bret is right, they are too carefully screened.

Once the left seized control of education, the loss of freedom became a forgone conclusion.

Jeff

 

[BigG]

Judges are usually former lawyers, which are politically motivated for the most part. Why do you think Shakespeare wrote, "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers," or words to that effect?