OPINION:
Although I am not trained in the legal profession, I believe that as a citizen I am right to be concerned that there are judges in the U.S. who are acting outside of the law so as to be obstructionists. If a judge is not applying the law appropriately, but is instead acting as a political activist, why does that case have to go to the Supreme Court? One has to assume that activist judges think they are above the law and therefore can operate with impunity until the Supreme Court rules that their orders have no merit. But it is wrong that we should have to wait for the highest court in the land to say that a judge has ignored the law.
If a judge gets drunk, runs a red light in a car and kills someone, does the matter have to go before the Supreme Court because judges are regarded as somehow sacrosanct? What if a judge decides to ignore the law and interfere in the deportation of a violent criminal, an illegal immigrant who could kill someone — does this matter need to go before the Supreme Court? Interfering in the deportation of a violent criminal who is also an illegal immigrant is, to me, no less a crime to me than committing involuntary manslaughter. If you aid and abet a crime, you are also guilty of that crime.
None of this should require the time of the Supreme Court. Surely a quick trial by peers could determine that a judge has ignored the law and our Constitution to advance a political agenda. This way, our executive branch can get on with its job and protect our nation. It would be a shame if Congress had to provide the legal community with a definition of integrity.
H.S. ROBINSON
Aiken, South Carolina
Please read our comment policy before commenting.