Progressives want to advance their agenda by remaking courts:

• Senator Sheldon Whitehouse sponsored and the current senate’s judiciary committee passed a bill that would create a process to solicit ethics complaints against supreme court justices, and use inferior courts to investigate the complaints.
• Current president Joe Biden and vice president Kamela Harris called for term-limiting justices by only letting them hear appeals for 18 years.
• Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bill that would add 6 justices in 12 years, block justices from using their power to offset congresses unless two thirds of justices agree, require justices to submit to IRS audit and publication of their tax returns, and let litigants motion for recusals and require that justices reply in writing.
• Harris called for Democratic senators to enact such bills by bypassing the 60-vote filibuster cloture rule. (Filibuster cloture is unconstitutional, but Harris wanted to end it in order to then defy the Constitution.)
• Now senators Peter Welch and Joe Manchin have introduced a constitutional amendment to freeze the number of supreme court justices at nine, limit terms to 18 years, and override appointment of chief justices by promoting the most-senior justice.

Conservatives want to advance their agenda by limiting courts: The Wages of War: When... Milford, Lewis Buy New $2.99 (as of 03:27 UTC - Details)

• Jurisdiction stripping has been advocated to legislatively remove some judicial power, for example over immigration and marriage.

Politicians are playing politics here and there, not protecting individuals’ rights overall.

Like the Constitution defines processes to secure individuals’ life, liberty, and property, judicial regulations should got the next step deeper here by defining processes to speedily produce just opinions.

Word processors, databases, clerks, friends of the court, and legacy practices produce overwhelming discovery, complex argumentation, long delays, and severely-throttled throughput. Critical legal cases becomes like Omnibus bills—complicated by design, and unjust. Bundling the government censorship of social media case Missouri v. Biden into its current ponderous mass has denied swift relief to each litigant and has victimized millions more.

Under current legislative controls, the judicial process strips litigants of property and unduly deprives them of rights for years. Many others can’t get any justice at all.

Justice—or injustice—is an emergent property of a system that encompasses all of society.

Justice needs to begin with generally good behavior, and with limited, clear, just statutes. Just and equitable remedies require good investigations, prosecutions, defenses, judges, and juries.

Justice is produced under government monopoly control currently. There are no customers supervising producers of justice’s components and selecting for ever-better producers.

Instead, justice producers need to be disciplined internally, by having government people use their offsetting powers to make exceptions and regulations and constitute inferior tribunals, to appoint, and to summarily impeach.

Justice is produced, or not produced, like any product: by completing projects, and on each project applying scarce resources to optimally trade off between time, cost, and quality.

Justice would be produced better by making and utilizing the following regulations:

1. Original work
   Each judge should be required to draft opinions, make use of relevant review comments, and sign on the record himself.
2. Separate opinions
   Each judge should be required to write his own separate opinion on each case.
3. Basis for each opinion
   Each judge should be required to state on the record what is the decisive basis for his opinion.
4. Draft opinions published before hearing next case
   Each judge should be required to prepare and publish his draft opinion right away after a trial or oral arguments, before his court moves on to the next case.
5. Outside reviews
   Each judge should be required to allow, say, 5, 3, or 2 business days for outside reviews to be published before he finalizes his opinion.
6. Revised opinions finalized before hearing additional case
   Each judge should be required to consider outside reviews and publish his finalized opinion before his court hears the next additional case.
7. A single three-judge panel in each court
   Each court should be instituted as a three-judge panel, so each court will support the Constitution when any single judge fails. A solo judge would fail to support the Constitution at times. A panel with an even number of judges would deadlock at times. A panel of more than three judges would reduce overall quality—it would normalize failure, and it would use up more scarce resources for appointment and impeachment.
8. No chief judge except on presidential impeachment trials
   Each court should be instituted to have no chief judge except to satisfy the current Constitution when a president is tried for impeachment.
9. Independent interpretation by every official
   Every official is required by his oath or affirmation to support or to protect the Constitution. He can fulfill this only if he stops the government’s production line whenever the official interprets that it would be unconstitutional for him to follow an existing statute or majority opinion. Un-Cancel Robert E. Le... Kerr, Gib Buy New $18.99 (as of 01:31 UTC - Details)
10. Enjoining at most within jurisdictions
    Each court should be limited to at most enjoining within the bounds of the court’s geographic jurisdiction.
11. Current understandings on all controversies when nominating
    Presidents and senators must ask forthrightly, and judicial candidates must answer forthrightly, to establish how prepared the candidates are to perceive facts, interpret law, and weigh equity on all foremost controversies and on any representative or instructive other controversies or cases.
12. Summary impeachments
    Representatives must use existing records to summarily impeach, and senators must use existing records to summarily try and punish, each judge who fails to support the Constitution.

Injustices come from Progressive judges, who are empowered by Progressive politicians, who are selected by Progressive parties. So develop a constitutionalist party.

Make informed appointments. Draft quickly and revise quickly. Experiment locally with remedies, while localizing errors. Remove Progressive judges quickly.

Produce justice for all.

The Best of James Anthony