Thursday, October 9, 2025

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 - 7:19:20 PM

Pat, I am OK. You are OK.

Judge-Made-Law[1]

The political issues today in the United States are not about gender, not racial, not Trump’s lies, not economic, not EVEN Trump’s lies,

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to say an oligarchy of financial interests is the issue.

The issue goes back further. The issue goes back to Socrates and Plato. “The Republic” a Socratic dialogue authored by Plato around 375 BC. Socrates and Plato asserted that “Philosopher-Kings” should be, “the ones” allowed to rule.

I think it is pretty obvious even to a simple reading of “The Republic.” Socrates and Plato wanted benevolent leaders, in their own image, i.e., Philosophers. Don’t we all?

The issue today in the United States is judge-made-law. The Constitution for the United States, Article I (legislature) and Article II (executive) provide how laws are to be made. There is no provision for judge-made-law or even Judicial review.

Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) made a very good case that we need benevolent learned people, in their own image, reviewing all the laws.

I would submit that every organization of men from the first cave-persons to the 2024 United States electorate, thought to establish benevolent learned men, in their own image, to make and enforce law.

The founding fathers were learned men who had lived under an executive (king), a legislature (1265[2]) and a judiciary (1215[3]) for CENTURIES. The founding fathers set up a representative Article I (legislature) and a representative Article II (executive) to make the laws in our Constitution for the United States. And an Article III (“judicial Power”) that was unconditionally Consitutionally constrained criminally[4] and civilly[5] by the discernment of a LOCAL (i.e., representative[6]) jury.

I want to ask every textualist, originalist, non-originalist or living constitutionalist, show me where in the 7,000 words of the current amendment constitution for the United States, Judge-Made-Law is called for or authorized?

It ain’t there!

Thomas Jefferson in 1820 confirmed the proverbial caveperson’s issue, the founding father’s issue and our issue TODAY with the dictates of any unrepresentative dictatorial body:

"(Y)you seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots…."

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves (think “Voting,” “due process of law” & “juries”): and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." (Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining/parentheticals) added)[7]

The first consequential attempt at judge-made-law was summarily negated by President Andrew Jackson in Chief Justice John Marshall’s Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) - "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it". .

The utter abhorrence of Jackson’s “Trail of Tears” gave unconstitutional and immoral authority to Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ruling 10 years later in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 (1842), affirming slaveholders'[8] right to reclaim escaped slaves across state lines. And then in Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858) the Court upheld the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that had declared it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was constitutional and that the federal government's laws, including the Fugitive Slave Act, superseded state laws.

Now the jaundice history that too many have been sold, asserts that Civil War was about “States Rights” and not about slavery. The Civil War was about judge-made-law and NOTHING else.

Chief Justice Roger Taney’s judge-made-law first in Prigg (1842) and Ableman (1859) that allowed the Southern States to invade the North States to recapture fugitive slaves. And then Chief Justice Roger Taney’s crème de la crème judge-made-law in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) saying that:

“They (Negroes) had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it.(Page 60 U. S. 407)”

When Chief Justice Roger Taney’s crème de la crème judge-made-law said that he USURPED the Northern States’ and the new territory’s “state’s rights to be free of slavery!

Judge-made-law started the Civil War, Judge-made-law cost this country 600,000 with the Civil War. Judge-made-law just after the Civil War made themselves ROYAL and ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE from the law in Judge-made-law has since the Civil War, FORCED the United States into 150 of ongoing racial inequality over the timely objection ot Justice John Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 552 (1896)

“For the first nearly 100 years that preceded Randall and Bradley (1776-1868) there was neither need nor questions regarding Judicial Immunity and then TWO despotic precedents within 5 years:

· Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15, 1869)[9] in response to the criminal liability in The Civil Rights Act of 1866 [10] passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then..

· Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872)^{^[11]} in response to civil liability in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 [12] passed into law April 20, 1871 are the origins of unconstitutional “immunity” in the American Justice system.

There is no Constitutional premise for immunity from the Constitution, or the laws derived from it. In fact immunity from the constitution is antithetical to the premise of a constitution’s raison d'etre.

Judicial Immunity has since spawned reconfirmation of immunity from liability for damages for his judicial acts, see”

· “These cases present issues involving the liability of local police officers and judges under § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, now 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioners” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 548 (1967)

o “Accordingly, this Court held in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951), that the immunity of legislators for acts within the legislative role was not abolished. The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established” Page 386 U. S. 554

· "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights" see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976),

· gives immunity to police officers and their informants "for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial," Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

· Briscoe then goes further with “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”^[5] for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” see Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335.

You wonder why “We the People” imprison ourselves at 4 times the rate of the of the MORE CIVILIZED World.

“We the People” of the United States have no enforceable Constitutional rights. THIS is in direct contradiction to the 1^st and 7^th Amendments in the original amended 1791 version and the Enforcement Acts authorized by the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments and passed into law post-Civil War.

This does not even mention the immunity and the Presidential Election, the “Black Rober Royalist“ handed Donald Trump with delay and the recent decision in 23-939 Trump, Donald J. v. United States “unitary theory” of the Presidency. decided July 1, 2024.”[13]

Judge-Made-Law only gives the allusion of settling things. Grey is the best the REAL world has to offer. “We need more GREY”

If there is anything further, please let me know.

“Time is of the essence”