The R.C. Journal notes the massive and widespread opposition on the part of our elected legislooters legislators to any independent review of legal authority. This reminds the Chief of the old one about the fox guarding the hen-house. Legislators make laws – that’s what they do. If they don’t, then they are prima facie less significant.
Judges are supposed to interpret and enforce the laws. Although abuse of their authority has fortunately NOT been a problem yet in South Dakota there is no restraint in place to prevent the sort of legal abomination like the infamous ruling of Judge Cashman in NH that gave a 60 day sentence to a long-term child-raper because “I no longer believe in punishment in the law.” In this case, the Judge’s personal BELIEF trumps the law – without a regular procedure for imposing sanction for this ignoring of the letter and spirit of the law. In short, this is an example of what constitutes the legal part of a de-facto politico-legal-media complex.
When the peasants voters have the temerity to propose a mechanism for addressing the ARBITRARY abuse exercise of legal authority, the legislature and the legal establishment, along with thier MSM enablers, instantly “fort up”, raise the drawbridge, drop the portcullis, and bar the gates against the threat to The Way Things Always Are Done Around Here.
The legislators are quoted extensively and uncritically in their universal opposition, which is expressed in terms that show that they have either NOT bothered to read the amendment, or else have read it but are distorting and incorrectly stating its provisions:
South Dakota’s legislative leaders said Friday they are united in an effort to defeat a 2006 ballot initiative that would allow judges to be sued by people who believe their rights have been violated. If approved by the voters, Amendment E  the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, or J.A.I.L.  would strip judges of their immunity from lawsuits stemming from their decisions.
The kernal amendment actually reads:
No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.
(The rest of the proposal establishes a Special Grand Jury system to handle the mechanics and procedure for this to be implemented.)
If this is unacceptable to the legal aristocracy, the Chief has to wonder why? Do the opponents really mean to say that “deliberate violation of the law” in legal decisions IS acceptable and beyond independent review? Are “deliberate disregard of material facts, jusicial acts without jurisdiction,…or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions…” REALLY beyond recourse without having to fight against the “good old boy” legal establishment?
According to the Legislature, the SD Bar, and many other political leaders, the answer to this to the voters is clear: “Don’t try this at home. Nothing to do here folks, go back home and watch American Idol, and leave the art of government to your betters. We really don’t need your scrutiny. Just remember to vote for us again in November!”
The stage is set for the argument about this measure. At this point the Chief thinks that the amendment is too radical and fundamental a reform to get past the universal rabid opposition of the politico-legal-media complex, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have merit.