With all these federal judges issuing injunctions I did a little reading concerning exactly what powers they have. I learned their authority is derived from the constitution, they are nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate, and it is a lifetime position. Supreme Court justices are chosen the same way.

Reading a bit further I learned about a principal in the law called, Judicial Independence. That is the reason for the lifetime appointment. The thought being Judicial Independence grants complete independence from political influences. They can’t lose their job when the administration changes.

I understand the reasoning; it is the best we can do. It is also the reason every political party wants to be the one appointing those judges. Additionally, the reason for “packing” the court. Both hope to ensure that “judicial independence” goes there way. It does help when you nominate/confirm your own candidate.

The odds a federal judge will ever be nominated to the supreme court are extremely low. Unlikely to advance any further in their law careers, why not rule in a way favorable to your political and personal interests.

Judges can retire and take another position where there may be rewards for just that. They are just folks like you and I. Career and family interests may influence them, opportunity for wealth and status is certainly alluring. A federal judge can retire at age 65 if he/she meets the requirements for that. Young enough for a second career.

It’s a real quandary. You are appointed for life and given judicial independence. That means you are supposed to interpret and apply the law as it is written. Unbiased and with “just the facts.” You are also supposed to be fair, empathic, and understanding. But, while doing all of that, you have to set your own feelings and beliefs aside, ignore them. That’s judicial independence. A question of integrity.

A federal judge reads these words, “shall not be infringed” and his opinion is, that means unrestricted access to firearms. Another federal judge believes it means; you can infringe upon that by enacting legislation. The reasoning there, I can restrict the law, without rewriting the law, because I am the law. Well, unless the supreme court disagrees and congress changes the law.

That is called setting the precedent. Everyone was doing it, everyone in the past said it was fine, so that makes it alright. It’s like slavery, it was alright, legally speaking, until it wasn’t. Did the law change, or did the opinion of the people change? Was it judicial independence or economic and social pressure?

I’m not alone in being frustrated with these federal judges issuing injunctions and making public statements that appear to support one political party over the other. I do question their judicial independence. It’s the best we have however, there is no other way. It’s the same thing as saying, trust me.

The principle of precedence is based on a Latin phrase, “stare decisis” which means to stand by things decided. Isn’t the internet a wonderful source of information about this stuff. It seems to me that today many attorneys/judges have decided it is time to change our mind about things. What has been decided over hundreds, even thousands of years, is no longer valid.

From the Internet: Key Elements of precedent.

Obiter dicta: Side remarks or hypotheticals in an opinion that are not binding but may be persuasive ( what is being used today)

Ratio decidendi: The core legal reasoning in a case that directly decides the dispute — this is the part that creates binding precedent legalclarity.org. ( the part the left wants to eliminate by using Obiter dicta)

Generally accomplished by just changing what the words mean. Or, by appeal to your sympathies.