The American Judicial System is broken. Too few Judges have made and are making very poor decisions that have negatively affected the socio-economic quality for the approximately 325,000,000 American Citizens and foreigners residing, investing and working in the United States of America. As you will come to understand, it is the judicial system that is the final arbiter in determining the laws of our land. Sadly however, there is currently little recourse or resolution, as warned by Thomas Jefferson, to poor judicial decisions, as the foxes remain in final determination over the chicken coop. Literally, just two (2) Judges can and are deciding the rule of law for our entire nation. These Judges are in collusion with others in positions of economic and political power to protect their positions of power. It is corruption, collusion and cronyism of the highest order and it is so well documented by so many sources, that it would require a library to put it all in writing.

For many of you, unless you have had an experience within our courts, it will be somewhat difficult to believe just how bad our system of justice is.  It is so corrupt and manipulated that many will refuse to believe it while others are contributing to it and the later group will most likely attempt to distract and discourage other from changing it.

Improving the System of Justice could be easily done if the political will was there, so therefore we must force the heavy hand of those in power.  First however we must create a viable system that is significantly superior to the one we have. The new system I propose allows a computer program and website to organize “multiple” representatives elected by each of the 51 States, allowing them to work together first in privacy, to coordinate and then determine publicly the concurring and dissenting opinions in every case, all done on their work or home computer, negating the need for travel. Literally, thousands of selected participants could determine our rule of law, instead of the very few that are in such positions of power today.  The trial would be just like any other trial with a select number of Judge(s) acting as mediator(s) rather than as both mediator(s) and judge(s). I think it is obvious that the higher up the ladder an appeal goes the more judges, that should be involved in the trial and determination. However with this new system the actual number of judges mediating the trial does not have to be 9 as is the current Supreme Court. Even though there is a vast amount of influence in a trial by Judges, the vast number of individuals who will be making the final determination will have the power to correct malfeasance and mistakes of the mediating Judges and the Judges will need to be much more careful for how they control their courtroom.

Additionally, the Improved System of Justice would promote voluntary participation and would promote those that side with and/or write the majority opinions. Those that work the hardest and provide the greatest input, advance to the highest levels in the judicial system rather than by political and economic cronyism, as it is today. Individual and groups would work in concert to achieve the best opinions, something desperately lacking in our corrupt system.  The system would also promote the privatization of the judiciary away from the monopoly of government counts. This would allow for competing systems that could work both independently and in concert to significantly improve our ailing system.

Think about it, without justice you cannot have a civil society. You will be in constant chaos, war and dire economic conditions. The rule of law today is actually the law by those who rule and therefore  in the twentieth century the U.S. was either in a war, recession or depression 1 out of every 2 years and those conditions are continuing into the 21st century. Do you want to change this? The technological age of computers and electronics is really a continuation of the communications revolution started in the 19th Century. The cat is out of the bag and it will never go back in again.  It is time to put the ruling elites and all oligarchies around the world out of business and the one and only way that I see to do it peacefully, is to take away their judicial power and controls.

The Problem:

The reason that there have been so many legal cases taken before the Supreme Court over the last 50 years, in this author’s opinion, is that there are too many laws passed by Local, State and Federal legislatures that infringe upon our constitutionally protected individual rights. The Citizens have had to and will continue to fight back through litigation trying to regain those rights taken away by the various legislative bodies. One must then ask the question of just how many individual rights can there be that could influence litigation by so many parties. You would have thought that most of the constitutional issues would have long been resolved. Can there be that many questions of constitutionality that the Supreme Court has more cases than it can actually, or wants to, hear?  No, but the Citizens will continue to fight back as long as there are injustices and usurpations of our Constitution. Our system is broken and the Judiciary continues to allow government bodies to usurp individual rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights and continues to thwart ligation targeted against the ruling elites within the oligarchies. This is just not a problem within the United States, it is a problem throughout the world. Why do you think there are so many injustices occurring on our planet. Most of the judicial systems around the world are broken and favor those in power over the Citizens. The problem is that the judicial systems have not really changed much since the time of Monarchs and end up promoting cronyism, and as we all no, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fewer individuals to manipulate the easier it is to corrupt the decisions and boy have our laws been corrupted and rights usurped.

To manage the high volume of cert petitions received by the Supreme Court each year (of the more than 7,000 petitions the Court receives, it will usually request briefing and hear oral argument in 100 or fewer), the Court employs an internal case management tool known as the “cert pool.” According to an article “Politics and Prisoners” at the Federal Appeal level, there are so many cases that the Defendants cannot possibly be getting a fair trial, since the Judges cannot physically even read their case loads. Judges reportedly rely on staffers to brief them on the case.  “The Judicial System in the United States is not only bankrupt of human resources, but is deceiving the American People, and it can be PROVEN statistically.” the author stated.

Even though the court only hears cases where there is a constitutional issue raised, the court does not hear all the cases and isn’t necessarily required to hear a case, even when appealed. In the recent 2008 case, We The People Vs. the United States, We The People sued the IRS to provide the law that required most individuals to file and pay a federal income tax, after a formal Redress of Grievance was filed and the IRS refused to supply the specific law requested.  The actual Constitutional issue in the case became “What is a redress of grievance as provided under Article 1, and is government bound to answer the Citizens questions within that Petition.”  The Supreme Court refused to hear the case after a Federal Appeals Court, said that the government “did not” have to answer questions within a formal Redress of Grievance. Apparently the Federal Government does not have to provide the specific law that requires most people to file and pay a Federal Personal Income Tax. The question, than why is the “right” to Petition the Government, the 1st Amendment, much less even a part of the Constitution, if the government does not have to answer the questions posed. I believe King George also refused to answer various questions from the colonists and you see where that got him. Sadly, the Citizens of our nation nether have the sensibility nor courage as few even know that such an important case has occurred and avoided by our corrupted Supreme Court.

Our system of Justice has been relegated through political influence into spending the bulk of it time attempted to justify various usurpations within the hundreds of thousands of laws enacted, while maintaining some semblance of a rule of law. A tough job, as the delineation between the common good and individual rights has never been adequately determined nor defined by the legislature or the courts. Go figure!!! It has been left to the arbitrary whims of political and judicial manipulation almost always favoring government and those with the substantive power and influence within the political process.

With the final arbiters being the only nine Supreme Court Justices, the power given to theses individuals who as we are taught, are supposed to interpret and define the law, is almost Godly. They, by interpreting the law and defining terms within any legislation are in fact either giving their approval for a law or they are finding it unconstitutional. Those within our judicial system, (the Judges) determine the law period, and that is what they are supposed to do.  However, four (4) Justices under the right circumstances such as vacation or illness of a couple of Judges, have determined the law, that we all as a nation of 325 million people, must abide by. In the case KELO Vs. CITY OF NEW LONDON, the Court in its infinite wisdom, with just five individuals – Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, agreed that Government through eminent domain authority could seize private property to sell to private developers to increase the tax revenues to the community. Thankfully, many States have passed legislation prohibiting this activity. History has shown us that property rights are the backbone of a civil society. How the Court could condone governments taking of private property because the houses are low income, modest or ugly and because there is a potential buyer who will pay  higher property taxes,  provide a more esthetically looking or economically prosperous for certain individuals within the community is so contrary to not only fairness but all aspects of private property rights. I don’t know about you but that much power in the hands of that few people is an oligarchy or a plutocracy, not a democratic republic. Their decisions affect an entire nation’s cultural and socio-economic system and it can create a huge cost of time and money to rectify such poor decisions, as it did in the Kelo case.

Two things must occur, first until such time as the determination is made as to when and why specifically it is acceptable to take away the rights of an individual for the benefits of the majority, we will continue to misappropriate our time and resources fighting over the many mitigating differences between the rulers within government and we the People since our democracy in reality, is primarily controlled by the few. The questions as to when and why specifically individuals should acquiesce our individual rights for the public good, must be determined, as it will eliminate vast amounts of litigation and political discourse. All Citizens will them know, what rights they have and more specifically, why they have them, which they then can be applied to all issues of constitutionality that we confront throughout our life.

Secondly with the current system, the promotion of such determinations as desired above, is not occurring, as the final arbiter is no greater than the nine Justices themselves and there is no current review or oversight mechanism in place that would enhance the process except for going through an exhaustive retrying of enough cases to establish a precedence once disputes occurs and then taking it back to the Supreme Court and hoping first that the Court even excerpts the case, and secondly that it adequately corrects it’s original errors with an acceptable opinion. It is the concurring or dissenting Opinions of The Court that often lack substance or provide perplexing or contradictory statements that may take years or decades to correct.  A system must be implemented to correct this problem that is acceptable both to the people and to those whom wish to be Judges.

The Solution:

The computer and equally importantly the Internet have provided us with great advancements, but none as great as this author wishes to now present.  Our Judicial System, although we do not like to acknowledge, is archaic and corrupted by money and power, despite it being considered to be by some the best in the world.  With a huge number of dissatisfied participants, even some of past and present Justices themselves, this statement does not bode well for the rest of the world’s systems of justice. In reality, I would suppose that there are participants in each country who believes that their system of justice is the best but that all counties judicial systems could be substantially improved if the means were known, available and implemented.

A perfect system would be that system that promotes both clarity and a majority determination by as many individuals as possible whom are known to have a high level of expertise in law, for the prevailing opinion. It is in this author’s opinion, that it is necessary to increase the number of decision makers as it pertains to the Constitutionality of the laws of a society of over 325 million people.  A system surely needs to be created and implemented that promotes the participation by as many qualified individuals as possible in the Judicial process and this should invariably improve our system of Justice.

The proposed system is a system that this author believes could accomplish that primary goals.

The nine current members of the Supreme Court would stay in place. However their roles would no longer be of a final arbiter status. The Improved System of Justice: A “Review Court” would be comprised of a percentage of standing U.S. Judges, Magistrates or those acting in any Judicial Capacity, however appointed or elected from all jurisdictions within the United States and its territorial processions – (Approx. 29,000).  These individual are paid by taxpayers and have a duty and responsibility to provide justice while upholding the intent and color of law within the Constitution of the United States of America.

A computer system would randomly select, as an example, 2.5% (approx 725 Judges) of those actively participation as Judges throughout the United States. For each case, they would receive notice via secured encrypted email that they have been chosen to The Supreme Court Review Board (SCRB) of case 12345, xxx Vs yyy.  A link to the secured server of the full video of the trial would accompany the email where they would then have thirty (30) days in which to review and cast a vote for the concurring or dissenting opinion that they support.  None of the SCRB Judges would know how the other SCRB members are voting nor would they yet know how the various Supreme Court Judges have voted. The system would then determine the final vote count and each participant would then hard copy their final determination by overnight mail to Washington DC. Once verified to be accurate, the official results would be published as presently done.

Now here’s a really cool part. Those Judges whom participate the most as SCRB Judges in both voting and/or writing of the majority opinion would be given Position Points that would promote them to higher levels Judgeships within our judicial system. The Supreme Court Judges would no longer be political appointments for life or require Senate confirmation that would leave more time for the Admin and Legislative branches to do their primary jobs. All Judges would be elected at the local levels and their performance would move then up or down in the judical system. Certain Individuals whom participated the most and excelled at supporting and writing the majority opinions would rise to the top of our judicial system. Those that wrote unpopular opinion and were not in the majority opinion would lose points and be reduced to lower positions within the system. Rotating in and out of various Judgeships could be done on an periodic basis to allow for moving and resettling of their families, etc.  It would be a true system of merit rather than our politically motivated system. It would be much more democratic and it would allow the participants to do their job without any unwanted outside influence, since no one would even know who the SCRB Members are until the final determinations are made. The final arbiter would be the SCRB, made up of many competent people working together to obtain the highest level of justice.

Once the SCRB results were finalized, only then would the participants and conclusions be publicized. All those participating including the Supreme Court members would than be given the SCRB results.

The Computer System and Program:

It would allow for several operations that would assist the SCRB in their responsibilities. The issue of time constraints of the participants will always affect any system and the software program would of course have to handle issues of replacing those that can not participate, who drop out during the process and all the other operational type issues that would arise due to the various aspects of individual schedules.      

The software could also provide the participants with those opinions that are being chosen by the greatest number of participants but with the exact number withheld until the results are published. As an example, the opinions, both the concurring and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court would, at the beginning, would be posted for everyone on the SCRB to read and evaluate. Any SCRB Member could than add, delete or totally rewrite an opinion.  Now you would have two or even five opinions, let say on the affirming side that members could now evaluate. As participants entered their votes which can be changed at any time, those receiving the greatest number of votes would rise to the top of the list, although the actual number is unknown nor which side is leading in the count.  This would allow the participants to concentrate on the opinion they currently believes is the best opinion, nor restrict them from believing that the 4th opinion on the list has the greatest potential and therefore attempt to get others to assist in improving that opinion. The results of the majority opinion would only be published for the highest vote winner for the concurring and dissenting opinions and not even the Supreme Courts opinion would be published unless it obtained the highest votes within either of the the two categories.

Typical “Blogging” areas within the system would also allow the participants to engage in private or public discussions, all the while under anonymity, to further the perfection of the various opinions being evaluated and written. Individuals could co-write opinions which would gain them position points if they garnered the majority opinion but could lose Position Points if their opinion was unpopular with the majority. Numerous Blogs of like-minded individuals could be working independently with some members sharing info between separate individual Blogs. Of course there would be Blogs for both the affirming and consenting opinions but as with all Blogs, the number of topics within those categories are unlimited. All the information in the blogs I believe should remain private and confidential so that the participants can vent ideas without any potential retribution.

Case management for constitutional issues could also be controlled by a similar SCRB type system, with the opinions as to why or why not the case will or will not be heard determined by a larger number of people then is currently making such determinations.  I feel that the case load will diminish greatly as fairness and justice permeate through the system.

Once cases are chosen to be heard, even non participating layman interested in a the specific case could begin to attempt the influence the Judicial community through open forums that would help to concentrate the knowledge surrounding a specific issue. For example, in a medical case, Doctors whom have expertise in a particular area may want to provide information to a forum when members of both the Supreme Court in the beginning of the case and then after the case, the SCRB members where they can obtain information from experts in specific fields.  Some cases are highly technical and although our system attempts to obtain the highest level of testimony, it is unlikely that it as successful as it should be.

Perhaps an enhanced system of justice would solve many adversarial confrontations and social problems eliminating much of the costs of government and promoting the voluntary participation within society by a greater number of people.  To me this should be the goal of any progressive society.


The benefits to such as system may be much greater than just providing a better level of justice, although this alone could be a world changing development.

It is the author’s opinion that this system could be placed into force and effect by current means of legislative enactment at the Federal level and would not require a Constitutional Amendment or any other requirements.

This computer and software system is perfect for the judical System but could enhance the democratic process in other institutions and groups within our society to increase both creativity and efficiency within their organization. There are obviously other individuals and groups currently working on similar projects, however I believe I have made a decent effort at showing the importance of such as system for Repairing the Scales of Justice and therefore we should not rely on others to do what we need to accomplish.

Our system of justice may be one of the best in the world, but it is also the most expensive in the world if you include all the politics, legislation and litigation. The political costs alone could be cut by as much as 95% as the need to create further legislation would not be required since existing court cases would remedy new issued that arise.

We speak of the Rule of Law as if it is a the fixed entity.  It should perhaps be more fixed but it is not. Those in power at any specific time attempt to manipulate the laws for various reasons, so it is more the Law By The Current Rulers. As better decisions are made, I’m assuming that liberty and individual rights for the most part will slowly prevail over socialism and the case load within the entire system should lessen.  The few new issues such as we are facing now, should we or should we not drill for oil offshore in Florida or in Alaska, might be the only issue on the agenda leaving a much greater time allocation to properly determine the best decision.  We would surely increase the democratic process within the educated class while keeping the beneficial components of our Constitutional Democratic Republic intact.

Most people prefer to believe that their political leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is fraught with corruption, the citizen has to choose how he or she will live. To take action against a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To choose to do nothing is to acquiesce one’s self-image of being principled. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think or do anything at all.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.