Ahem...hem...hem...
So if you have been down to the Pennington County Courthouse in the last year, you've noticed a few people standing outside asking for signatures so that an initiative/amendment/whatever can be put on the ballot.
That initiative is called "J.A.I.L.," and it blows. Here's a brief article that appeared on the Editorial page of the RCJ this morning:
-----------------------
Guest editorials, 1-3: Read JAIL's fine print
By The Madison Daily Leader
MADISON - An initiated constitutional amendment is going to be on the 2006 ballot if enough signatures are valid.
Proponents have named it the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, so they could use the catchy acronym JAIL. The measure would, proponents say, "punish wayward judges with civil suits and even criminal charges."
And who are the "wayward judges"? Well: any judge that makes a decision that one or more of the affected parties aren't happy with, could be "punished" under JAIL!
The measure would set up a Special Grand Jury, with 13 jurors, drawn from the state's voter registration lists, each serving one year and paid more than $100,000 a year each.
JAIL would have a budget of more than $2.5 million. The Legislature would be required to establish a Special Grand Jury facility (centrally located) but not within a mile of any judicial body (talk about paranoia!).
And: it will be funded through fines, fees and forfeitures, but if that doesn't produce enough money, the Legislature will impose "appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants."
OK, so you have an individual who wants to file a civil complaint against a judge and they have to pay a filing fee, right?
Well, not necessarily, because the amendment provides for a $50 filing fee, but you can file a statement that you are impoverished or because you "object to such fee."
We vote on our judges ... citizens have an absolute right to reject a particular Circuit Court judge if they believe they will be treated unfairly ... and all parties have an absolute right to appeal a judge's decision to the Supreme Court.
This is going to be one of those issues where you need to move from the headlines to the fine print and carefully read the amendment. From doing that, our conclusion is: it looks like Swiss cheese, but it smells like Limburger!
-----------------------
Skoggle is not a fan. (I have no idea why I just went all 3rd person) I'm all for judicial accountability, but these aren't tenured President-appointed judges who are on the bench for life. We have good people sitting on the bench in Rapid City and I for one don't think they need an added stress of having every decision they make brought before a jury of over-paid private citizens. In addition, as there is nothing in the JAIL initiative that limits who can be a juror, a felon who was a defendant in front of a judge could then be on a jury deciding whether that judge made a just decision.
The writer of the above article is right...stinky Limburger.
(jumps off soap box, packs it up and runs down the street)
That initiative is called "J.A.I.L.," and it blows. Here's a brief article that appeared on the Editorial page of the RCJ this morning:
-----------------------
Guest editorials, 1-3: Read JAIL's fine print
By The Madison Daily Leader
MADISON - An initiated constitutional amendment is going to be on the 2006 ballot if enough signatures are valid.
Proponents have named it the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, so they could use the catchy acronym JAIL. The measure would, proponents say, "punish wayward judges with civil suits and even criminal charges."
And who are the "wayward judges"? Well: any judge that makes a decision that one or more of the affected parties aren't happy with, could be "punished" under JAIL!
The measure would set up a Special Grand Jury, with 13 jurors, drawn from the state's voter registration lists, each serving one year and paid more than $100,000 a year each.
JAIL would have a budget of more than $2.5 million. The Legislature would be required to establish a Special Grand Jury facility (centrally located) but not within a mile of any judicial body (talk about paranoia!).
And: it will be funded through fines, fees and forfeitures, but if that doesn't produce enough money, the Legislature will impose "appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants."
OK, so you have an individual who wants to file a civil complaint against a judge and they have to pay a filing fee, right?
Well, not necessarily, because the amendment provides for a $50 filing fee, but you can file a statement that you are impoverished or because you "object to such fee."
We vote on our judges ... citizens have an absolute right to reject a particular Circuit Court judge if they believe they will be treated unfairly ... and all parties have an absolute right to appeal a judge's decision to the Supreme Court.
This is going to be one of those issues where you need to move from the headlines to the fine print and carefully read the amendment. From doing that, our conclusion is: it looks like Swiss cheese, but it smells like Limburger!
-----------------------
Skoggle is not a fan. (I have no idea why I just went all 3rd person) I'm all for judicial accountability, but these aren't tenured President-appointed judges who are on the bench for life. We have good people sitting on the bench in Rapid City and I for one don't think they need an added stress of having every decision they make brought before a jury of over-paid private citizens. In addition, as there is nothing in the JAIL initiative that limits who can be a juror, a felon who was a defendant in front of a judge could then be on a jury deciding whether that judge made a just decision.
The writer of the above article is right...stinky Limburger.
(jumps off soap box, packs it up and runs down the street)
posted by Sarah at 8:30 AM
4 Comments:
Yeah, whaddup with the con Repubs being so down on judges these days (Roe v Wade)? What kinds of "bad decisions" have they made that warrant this kind of initiative in their minds? I think the decisions on hemp may also have something to do with it. Maybe it's the libertarians who are stirring things up, huh? What's your read, Skogg?
I don't know. I need to do some more research into where this JAIL thing started, and who penned the ridiculous document.
But I agree with your assessment, Owl.
I was at the court house recently, there was a cute hippy girl with a petition...'legalize hemp', she said. I don't much like signing petitions without some research so we sat on the sity-down-spot outside the court house and I learned her life story. It was not a sad one, hard but not sad. She had no idea about the whens, wheres or whats of the petition. She just wanted to earn enough money to get to Dallas. She said petition signatures would do that for her.
...what's up with that in the moral scheme of things I wonder? Used to be we would sell blood for money...I think that was more beneficial.
I sell boondoggle keychains.
Post a Comment
<< Home