The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter
or Reform Government.
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights
Voting Blindly On Judges
Every election cycle people ask
me how they should vote regarding judges on their ballot, and every time I must
give these people the same advice. No matter where one lives, whether Ohio,
Florida, or California, the question regarding voting on judges is always the
same, "Can you give me some advice on how to vote on the judges?" Below is an
actual example of one such current inquiry:
Why is it that the ballot for some judges running
for certain jurisdictions contain only one name? What is the purpose of
voting if there is no selection?
At other times you may see three judges running
for office. I have yet to see one that I am familiar with. As a
citizen I cannot get background information on any judge running for
office. Where do they come from? Who puts them on the ballot? Who decides
their term? How in the world can
anyone vote for someone they know nothing about?
If you have any information on this I would love to
hear about it.
While I responded back to this
writer personally, I deemed it appropriate that I modify my answer somewhat and
make it public seeing as this question lies within the mind of most, if not
every voter in this country, namely, "How in the world can anyone vote for
someone they know nothing about?" The fact is, they can't if intelligence has
anything to do with voting! Otherwise, we may as well let mental patients
punch holes in the ballot, or touch the screen in deciding judges for
Now for some shocking
revelations. The shadow government has designed the voting
process regarding judges to be illusory, foggy, and nebulous, leaving voters in the
dark. Why, not even the Republican Party leaders can
answer the above questions as
they, too, are in the
same quandary, and have asked me the very same type of questions.
Generally, there is never
an outside challenger to a sitting judge. The reason for this is that only
those who hold a title of
nobility (incidentally, forbidden by
the U.S. Constitution) of esquire, an English
title usually referring to lawyers, may run for judgeship. It is in this manner the judicial fraternity holds
a tight rein on their exclusive monopoly. This method is designed to close
out non-lawyers with good legal minds who are principled from
running for judicial office.
Further, even should one be "qualified" to run for
judgeship, they do not do so. Should one dare to run, woe be unto him if he does not
win in the election, for then he must
appear as a lawyer in front of the very person whose seat he challenged. Basically, that lawyer
must win or consider it the end
of his career. As a practical matter, that is the way the system
works (or shall I say, does not work.)
Almost without exception,
when a judge decides to retire at the end of his term, he takes an "early retirement" just months before his
term expires so that the
governor may appoint a temporary
replacement judge. This is
standard operational procedure (SOP) in judicial politics. It's a game
of "keep away from the voters." Don't let the people vote on judges, or in
lieu thereof, like growing mushrooms, as the saying goes, "feed'em sh_t,
and keep'em in the dark." We know federal judges are appointed for life, but as
a practical matter, so are state judges.
The objective of planned "early retirements" of judges,
is to get the judge's replacement to be listed on
the up-coming ballot as the "incumbent," which translates into the incumbent always wins the judicial election
because "he is experienced." One will be hard put to ever find an incumbent
judge who lost the election and had to surrender his seat to a
There is a very
purposeful and intentional plan being
carried out when it comes to voting for
judges. This is because those who
manipulate and control the system know that if you can control the
judiciary, you have control over all the rest of government, notwithstanding which Party or person is in
office. By all means, they must
not allow the voters to control the judiciary. To do so, would be for
the power-brokers to lose control of the country.
Now why is it that the
electorate is kept in the dark when it comes to judicial candidates? Knowledge
is power, and the objective is to keep the electorate ignorant when it comes to
whom to vote for regarding judges. The voting process in this country
regarding judges must be handled just like any communist
country--list them on the ballot as the sitting
judge, and allow the voters to just punch the name, even if it
be the only name, on the ballot. It's
called "a choice of one." With this method, the
electorate is "assured" that sitting judges have the public's "vote of
confidence," and thus they are "elected" for another twelve years,
after which the same process is repeated. The net result is that the public
never gets new judges unless the system appoints them.
We all know that one cannot see the vermin under a rock
unless the rock is removed. After the rock is removed, only then can we see what
is under it. "...men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the
light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the
light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John
3:19-20. So we now know why judicial elections take place in the dark.
I have advised even those
in the Republican Party, and those who
have asked me similar questions, to just vote "No confidence"
in respect to judges on the ballot. This means you will be better off to not
vote blindly and ignorantly for an
unknown. The "unknown" about the judge is
the plan. Remember, in the event
of a recall effort, only a
percentage of the votes is
required. If the judge
received only one thousand votes to get him elected, it
may take just less than a
hundred signatures to start a recall.
- Webmaster's Note:
- Robe Probe is a judge rating site. It is not affiliated with J.A.I.L.
"Who stands to be hurt if Amendment E
is not passed?"
Would it be the South Dakota Bar Association
and lawyers? NO!
Would it be the South Dakota Legislature?
Would it be the insurance
companies and agencies? NO!
IT WOULD BE THE VOTERS OF SOUTH
WHO WOULD BE HURT.
Vote YES on Amendment E for
your future and your own good!