Democracy sure ain't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives—including what we have now: a democracy corrupted by the royal class of the lawyer-monopoly-mob—ABA the godfather entity with its code of silence Model Rule 8.2: lawyers can’t say anything bad about a judge. This is effectively codified into every State's law.
(Also visit Make America Geeky Again and JusticeMyAss.org and John4Midwest.com )
A functioning democracy distributes power (as does any robust engineering design, a communications system by analogy), which reduces the chances of corruption (data corruption, by analogy). Tucker Carlson confirmed that lawyers are a “separate segment of society,” so if you worship at the Fox alter, there ya go. Regardless, this was a significant admission (slip-up) from the media establishment. Judge Posner—the hardest-working appeals court judge ever—called-out the lawyer-mob harshly when he resigned (search it), which should have been the insider exposé of the decade if not century. Relative silence on it from the media.
A royal class has concentrated power, so court corruption should be no surprise. A royal class was supposedly eliminated in 1776+. There’s no Constitutional authority for the lawyer royal class: Article III gives Congress full authority to REGULATE the lower fed courts, which should eliminate the royal class and its corruption, but the Senate is 2/3 lawyers and the House 1/3; so the mob has Congress in its grip.
The multiplier effect from the lawyer-mob (the peak white-collar crime syndicate) and its corruption is huge. The media are swarming with lawyers, so even assuming someone (Carlson, for example) understood the implications of this royal class and its corruption (and he may well), his hands are tied. Democracy—with its unavoidable shortcomings that we can attempt to minimize—is the only way that political power can be widely distributed. The lawyer royal class and its fellow-traveling wordpushers in the media control information and "debate," such as it is.
The "secret" (and it shouldn't be a secret) to effective democracy and combatting the myths that subvert it? Don't be a SUCKER!! You want bullet points and nothing more from a candidate? You'll get what you deserve, then. You want underlying substance? Do a little reading.
Myth#1: "the rule of law." Myth#2: "free markets."
Solution to Myth #1: eliminate the lawyer monopoly, and streamline the civil side of courts with online fillable forms (written by Congress, and States will follow) that give truly-objective preliminary decisions, which is easy to do and which judges MUST address. This will bust the corruption and economic windfall in civil litigation that renders the "rule of law" a myth. BUT CONGRESS STILL MUST HOLD JUDGES ACCOUNTABLE. It easily sets the foundation for truly-objective due process and ultimate decisions on the merits of cases, instead of corrupt/incompetent judges throwing out cases they don't like.
But Congress and legislatures must get off their lazy asses and do their jobs to keep judges in check and remove the large numbers of incorrigibles. (Stuffed with lawyers, the present Congress is not likely to do this, obviously.) Without the corrupt windfall from judges in the pockets of their lawyer-pals (as was glaringly obvious to me in Minneapolis in the months before George Floyd's death, which was the watershed moment that began this project, six weeks after I had called-out the Hennepin "military regime" on the record of the Minnesota Sup Ct), civil litigation will dry up for the incompetent lawyers (whom you want to winnow out), but the competent lawyers will also have less work.
This will be an incentive for the competent litigators to switch to criminal prosecution and public defense—where representation is truly needed. The $ savings from the 1000x+ increase in court efficiency on the civil side (a conservative estimate for the initial stages of civil litigation) can be used to increase salaries on the criminal side to further attract quality prosecutors and public defenders. Pie-in-the-sky? Not if you get Congress off their butts. Legal principles are Boolean expressions, not lawyer mumbo-jumbo. The before-trial "motion practice" (80% of it) can be boiled down to web-fillable forms and document upload buttons for evidence.
Solution to Myth#2: there is no obvious actual solution. My proposed possible step (only a step) in what would appear to be the right direction (this is hedged statement, in case you didn't notice) is a real-time portal into FED interest-rate action, where a control algorithm acts as a two-way governor (both up and down) for the stock market, to reduce accelerations—like a dashpot. I've already discussed this at length, and this is much less socialized than the existing Greenspan Socialist Transform. Greenspan (and his successors) would stop the market downside but pushed his Kook-Kool-Aid baloney that it's impossible to recognize a bubble forming (statistically it's quite easy to identify a highly-likely bubble), so he let markets inflate and pop. He claimed the mess could be cleaned up, i.e a bailout; but with what damage he didn't say, assuming he even thought about it.
There is significant damage from bailouts; the money-printing distributes and delays the damage, which is principally by higher prices. But political turmoil results, and the things will eventually go out of control—much sooner than they might otherwise. Answer: Alan should have stuck to clarinet. The FED and markets were irrevocably changed on 10/15/98 by Greenspan's double-cut at ~4:45pm as the stock market was closing down hard in a "crash." Greenspan transformed and socialized the stock market and the economy generally into Bailouts $Я$ Us.
Voters became addicted to papering over cascading collapses triggered by big players with too much debt. Voters were okay (suckered enough) with socializing these failures into delayed and slowly-rising prices, so long as they perceived their homes, 401(k)'s, or other supposed nest eggs were "doing okay" until they realized they weren't compared to the true cost of living. And especially when Congress changed a law that cracked an egg—like raised the age for an entitlement. There will probably come a time when the FED loses control of prices, and announces (along with Yellen who seems to want to be in the front of the bus going off the cliff) capital controls, i.e. odd-even license plates days for gas, and other similar restrictions on spending money—because it's not your money; it's the government's.
d
• Don't fall for the lawyers yapping their the MYTH of the "rule of law."
• Don't fall for the senators (who are mostly lawyers) gas bagging about "tradition" and "precedent," which they follow when they choose and ignore when they choose.
• Don't fall for the TV and radio lawyers doing the "isms" jive — "textualism," "originalism," and the rest: these are polysci-JD's who have never changed a spark plug. They know nothing about actual analysis and practical solutions (and little about the actual law); and without their JD and law license would be rubberstamping bureaucrats. They wouldn't dare debate—in a real debate—a pissed-off physics-EE, but they will be forced to confront all this eventually. And I almost forgot, Minnesota, I'm not going to be "nice," in case you didn't notice. Simpleton-fraud-judge Kevin Burke is the archetypal Clockwork Orange (Minnesota) judge: plies his "he was a kind man" baloney while he's a cut-throat (but incompetent) crony of his Minneapolis lawyer-pals.
