THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 1, BELOW-
WE HAD LIBERAL COMMIE FOREIGN PAYROLL INDIAN SUPREME COURT JUDGES ( TAKING A CUE FROM AMERICA ) DECLARING THAT INDIAN CONSTITUTION PROVIDES JUSTICE TO ILLEGAL ROHINGYA AND BANGLADESI MUSLIM REFUGEES..
SORRY INDIAN CONSTITUTION PROTECTS ONLY LAW ABIDING INDIAN CITIZENS.. THIS IS THE SCOPE..
UNACCOUNTABLE SUPREME COURT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE WATAN’S EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY.
LET PAKISTAN OR SAUDI ARABIA ABSORB THESE MUSLIM “DREAMERS”.
WE DON’T WANT THEM IN INDIA. DREAMERS MY ASS.
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY HAS NEVER BEEN DESIGNED TO BE A COUNTERWEIGHT TO THE US PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. IT IS JUST A MEANS TO INTERPRET THE US CONSTITION THE RIGHT WAY WITH BODMAS APPLIED TO FIND WHICH LAWS TAKE PREPONDERANCE ..
THE STUPID JUDGES MUST KNOW HOW TO APPLY BODMAS..
US JUDGES PREVENTING TRUMP FROM BANNING CHINESE APPS STEALING PERSONAL INFORMATION OF VOTERS ( POSTAL BALLOT SCAM) IS NOT ALLOWED BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION..
FEDERAL JUDGES EXIT BY WAY OF DEATH OR RESIGNATION, WITH IMPEACHMENT COMING INTO PLAY SPARINGLY. ONLY 15 FEDERAL JUDGES IN U.S. HISTORY HAVE EVER BEEN IMPEACHED AND NEVER A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. OF THE 113 JUSTICES TO SERVE, ONLY TWO HAVE BEEN FACED WITH THE THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT.
IN 1804, THE HOUSE IMPEACHED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SAMUEL CHASE, BUT HE WAS NOT CONVICTED BY THE SENATE, AND HE CONTINUED TO SERVE ON THE BENCH UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1811.
ALMOST ALL THE AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHERS WERE AGENTS OF GERMAN JEW ROTHSCHILD
THESE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS SHOULD (IN THEORY) PUT JUSTICES ABOVE POLITICS AND ALLOW THEM TO RULE THROUGH A FAIR, UNBIASED INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. IN PRACTISE JUDGES BECOME HIGHLY POLITICAL.
THERE ARE NO THINKERS IN AMERICA.
WHAT ARE ALL AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES WORTH?
ALEXANDER HAMILTON ( DIED 1804) WAS AN AMERICAN STATESMAN, POLITICIAN, LEGAL SCHOLAR, MILITARY COMMANDER, LAWYER, BANKER, AND ECONOMIST.
HE WAS ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
HE WAS AN INFLUENTIAL INTERPRETER AND PROMOTER OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS THE FOUNDER OF THE NATION'S FINANCIAL SYSTEM, THE FEDERALIST PARTY, THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, AND THE NEW YORK POST NEWSPAPER. AS THE FIRST SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, HAMILTON WAS THE MAIN AUTHOR OF THE ECONOMIC POLICIES OF GEORGE WASHINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION
WHEN ALEXANDER HAMILTON WROTE THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, THE AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY IN THE AMERICAS WAS VERY LOW. TODAY IT IS MORE THA DOUBLE, WITH PEOPPLE BECOMING SENILE ATLEAST FIVE YEARS BEFORE THEIR FINALLY KICK THE BUCKET
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS IS A COLLECTION OF 85 ARTICLES AND ESSAYS WRITTEN BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JAMES MADISON, AND JOHN JAY UNDER THE COLLECTIVE PSEUDONYM "PUBLIUS" TO PROMOTE THE RATIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
THIS MEANS JUSTICES WILL SERVE MUCH LONGER TENURES ON AVERAGE THAN THEY DID IN THE PAST. SUCH TERM LENGTHS CAN PREVENT THE BENCH FROM BEING UPDATED TO MIRROR SOCIAL AND CULTURE PROGRESS.
IN THE COURT'S HISTORY, ONLY SIX OF 113 JUSTICES HAVE NOT BEEN WHITE MEN—TWO AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEN AND FOUR WOMEN.
AGE DEFINITELY ADDS A POLITICAL ELEMENT TO THE BENCH. JUSTICES WILL OFTEN CHOOSE TO RETIRE WHEN A PRESIDENT IS IN OFFICE WHO ECHOES THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS, ENSURING THEIR SEAT CONTINUES TO VOTE AS THEY WOULD.
IN FEDERALIST NO. 78, HAMILTON SAID THAT THE JUDICIARY BRANCH OF THE PROPOSED GOVERNMENT WOULD BE THE WEAKEST OF THE THREE BRANCHES BECAUSE IT HAD "NO INFLUENCE OVER EITHER THE SWORD OR THE PURSE, ... IT MAY TRULY BE SAID TO HAVE NEITHER FORCE NOR WILL, BUT MERELY JUDGMENT."
ACCORDING TO HAMILTON THE PURPOSES OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS TO "DECLARE ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST TENOR OF THE CONSTITUTION VOID", MEANING TO RULE ANY LAWS OR POLICIES NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CONSTITUTION HAS NO POWERS OVER AMERICAS EXYERNAL OR INTERNAL SECURITY.. IT APPLIES ONLY TO THE LAW ABIDING MERICAN CITIZEN.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH—EVEN THOUGH IT HAS THE POWER TO INTERPRET LAWS—IS CONSIDERED THE WEAKEST OF THE THREE BRANCHES BY MANY BECAUSE IT CANNOT ENSURE THAT ITS DECISIONS ARE ENFORCED.
IN 1791, GEORGE WASHINGTON ASKED ALEXANDER HAMILTON ABOUT ROTHSCHILD’S CENTRAL BANK.. WASHINGTON SIGNED THE BILL, WHICH PROVIDED A 20-YEAR CHARTER .. JEW ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS BORN ALEXANDER LEVINE.. IN ST. CROIX, THE WEST INDIES.
AFTER CHANGING HIS NAME A HE MARRIED RICH JEWESS ELIZABETH SCHUYLER FROM A SLAVE OWNER FAMILY DAUGHTER OF PROMINENT NEW YORK SENATOR JEW PHILIP SCHUYLER
ACCORDING TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON THE PURPOSES OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS TO "DECLARE ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST TENOR OF THE CONSTITUTION VOID", MEANING TO RULE ANY LAWS OR POLICIES NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S BRAINS AND THAT OF THE ENTIRE FOUNDING FATHER OF AMERICAN CAN BE FITTED UNDER THE FORESKIN OF CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL’S UNCIRCUMCISED PRICK WITH SPACE FOR 99.9% MORE.
US CONSTITUTION IS NOT ETCHED ON ROCK..
IT IS A DYNAMIC DOCUMENT WHICH MUST MOVE WITH THE TIMES..
WHEN THE BABY GROWS UP DON’T CUT HIS / HER LEGS TO SUIT THE KOSHER CRADLE.
IN THE TIMES OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON CHINA DID NOT USHER COVID-19 TO FORCE AMERICA GO INTO A BULLSHIT POSTAL BALLOT SYSTEM, WHERE CHINESE APPS LIKE TIK TOK IN CAHOOTS WITH FACEBOOK/ TWITTER STOLE VOTERS INFORMATION AND SIGNATURES TO RIG THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OF 2020
BELOW: ALL FOUNDING FATHER OF AMERICA WERE GERMAN JEW ROTHSCHILD'S AGENTS AND FREEMASONS.
THURGOOD MARSHALL (DIED 1993) WAS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM OCTOBER 1967 UNTIL OCTOBER 1991. MARSHALL WAS THE COURT'S FIRST BLACK AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUSTICE.
HIS ENTIRE TERM WAS SPENT IN PROTECTING CRIMINAL DNA BLACKS.. MARSHALL DIED OF HEART FAILURE AT THE AT THE AGE OF 84.. HE WAS SENILE FOR ATLEAST FOUR YEARS BEFORE HIS DEATH
Senior status is a form of semi-retirement for United States federal judges, as well as judges in some state courts. A judge in the federal court system must be at least 65 years of age to qualify, and the combination of the judge's age and years of service must be at least 80 years. Senior judges vacate their seats on the bench, and the president may appoint new full-time judges to fill those seats
In 1919, Congress created the senior status option for inferior court judges. Before that, a judge who reached the age of seventy with at least ten years of service as a federal judge was allowed to retire and receive a pension for the rest of his life; afterward, a judge who qualified for retirement could assume senior status
In 1937, the option was extended to Supreme Court justices, although justices so electing are generally referred to as "retired" justices rather than having senior status. A senior justice is essentially an at-large senior judge, able to be assigned to any inferior federal court by the Chief Justice but receiving the salary of a retired justice. However, a retired justice no longer participates in the work of the Supreme Court itself.
In 1954, Congress revised requirements for senior status. Federal judges or justices could still assume senior status at seventy with ten years of service, but they could also assume senior status at 65 with fifteen years of service.
In 1984, the requirements were further revised to what is often called the "Rule of 80": once a judge or justice reached age 65, any combination of years of age and years of service on the federal bench which totaled to eighty entitled the judge to assume senior status.
Under the Rule of 80, a judge receives a full pension—equal to his or her salary—when the judge’s age and the judge’s years of experience on the bench equal 80. For example, a 65 year old judge with 15 years on the bench qualifies under the Rule of 80, as does a 70 year old judge with 10 years on the bench
Because a judge receives full pay upon satisfying the Rule of 80, the judge has no pecuniary reason to stay in office. The judge may continue to serve, but does not receive any dollars for doing work. In effect, the judge’s salary is reduced to $0. In addition, a judge who leaves office can earn more money in the private sector or simply enjoy leisure with no monetary penalty
And judges who take their pension pay are exempt from FICA and Medicare payments (in some states, they are also exempt from state and city income taxes) . In sum, the financial benefits to leaving office are quite considerable for a federal judge.
The judge who decides to leave office (“active status”) faces a further choice: to remain on senior status with a reduced workload or to resign. A judge on senior status usually has a reduced caseload (down to 25 percent of the normal caseload).
The current system encourages elderly judges to take senior status or to resign but does not compel them to. It seems to assume that judges will enjoy their work most when their abilities are sharp. As their abilities decline, the burden of work will mount, and hence the incentive to quit will increase
The retirement system removes the pecuniary incentive to remain a judge beyond this point (as long as the Rule of 80 is satisfied). The main advantage of this system, compared to mandatory retirement, is that judges who remain sharp beyond the age of 70 will be less tempted to resign, and thus will continue to contribute to the judicial system—if need be, on a reduced basis. In addition, incompetent judges over 65 who have satisfied the Rule of 80 will be tempted to resign.
ALL THIS IS BULLSHIT, AS JEWISH DEEP STATE BRIBES JUDGES TO STAY IN OFFICE AND DIE AT A TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING.
HAVING A JUDICIARY THAT IS ALLOWED TO DO SELF GYNECOLOGY AND BE TOO INDEPENDENT INCLUDE POSSIBLE ABUSE OF POWER BY JUDGES. SELF-INTEREST, IDEOLOGICAL DEDICATION AND EVEN CORRUPTION MAY INFLUENCE THE DECISIONS OF JUDGES WITHOUT ANY CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE TO PREVENT THIS ABUSE OF POWER IF THE JUDICIARY IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT
The relationship between the judiciary and the executive is a complex series of dependencies and inter-dependencies which counter-check each other and must be carefully balanced. One cannot be too independent of the other. Furthermore, judicial support of the executive is not as negative as it seems as the executive is the branch of government with the greatest claim to democratic legitimacy. If the judiciary and executive are constantly feuding, no government can function well
An extremely independent judiciary would lack judicial accountability, which is the duty of a public decision-maker to explain and justify a decision and to make amendments where a decision causes injustice or problems. Judges are not required to give an entire account of their rationale behind decisions, and are shielded against public scrutiny and protected from legal repercussions.
THE PHRASE "DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR" PREDATES THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. JOHN ADAMS EQUATED IT WITH QUAMDIU SE BENE GESSERINT IN A LETTER TO THE BOSTON GAZETTE PUBLISHED ON 11 JANUARY 1773, A PHRASE THAT FIRST APPEARED IN SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1701 IN ENGLAND.
IN THE 2000 CASE OF BUSH V. GORE, A MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT, INCLUDING SOME APPOINTEES OF PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH ( DEEP STATE CANDIDATE ), OVERRULED CHALLENGES TO THE ELECTION OF THE GEORGE W. BUSH THEN PENDING IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
POSTAL BALLOTS WERE DUMPED IN FLORIDA AT THE LAST MINUTE IN FLORIDA WHEN COUNTING WAS ALMOST OVER TO GIVE BUSH AN ILLEGAL WIN OVER AL GORE .
THIS CASE HAS INCREASED FOCUS AND ATTENTION ON JUDICIAL OUTCOMES AS OPPOSED TO THE TRADITIONAL FOCUS ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS.
CHANGING THE CURRENT SYSTEM WHERE JUDGES DECIDE ON THEIR OWN IF THEY ARE SENILE OR NOT REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH REQUIRES A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BE PROPOSED BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF EACH CHAMBER OF CONGRESS AND THEN RATIFIED BY THREE-QUARTERS OF THE STATES.
THE NEED OF THE HOUR IN USA IS FOR JUDGES TO HAVE NON-RENEWABLE FIXED TERMS OF SERVICE TO REPLACE LIFE TENURE.
ARTICLE III MUST BE REINTERPRETED TO PERMIT FIXED TERMS RATHER THAN LIFE TENURE, OBVIATING THE NEED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR STATUTE.
Today, IN USA THERE IS A three-level federal court system—trial courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court—with about 800 federal judges. All those judges, and the Justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
The very first sentence of Article III says: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
The second sentence of Article III, Section 1, says: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
The language about “holding offices during good behaviour” has been interpreted to mean that the only way federal judges can be removed from office is if the House of Representatives impeaches them, and the Senate convicts them, of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
For practical purposes, any judge who does not commit a crime (or do something equally bad) has “lifetime tenure” and will stay in office until he or she dies or voluntarily steps down
Unlike the federal system, judges might think they have to do politically popular things, or build up political connections, in order to keep their jobs, even if that means ruling in a way that doesn’t follow the law.
In the federal government, there are many officials who do judge-like things—think of military courts-martial, for example—but who do not have the lifetime tenure that Article III seems to require for federal judges.
Thousands of decisions of this kind are made every year by federal officials who are not considered “judges” for purposes of Article III, and therefore do not have lifetime tenure, but who are doing the kinds of things judges usually do: settle disputes between people. These administrative officials usually serve only for a few years, after which the President can replace them. There are safeguards to prevent officials of this kind from being openly biased or unfair
Judges must not be allowed to control the timing of their resignations, or even deaths,enabling them to bestow political benefits on a particular party
just as the Supreme Court has found constitutional the devolution of judicial power to non-life-tenured judgeships, it could also reread Article III to permit fixed times for retirement. Moreover, judges should be required to make more transparent their work and the rationales for their judgments. Video cams must be fitted to point out that a judge is brain dead.
Democracy teaches that no one person (judges included) ought to hold too much power for too long
The Constitution’s framers, wary of dynastic monarchs and the entrenchment of political power, decided that senators would defend their seats every six years, members of Congress every two, and presidents every four. (A century and a half later, after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four straight successful White House bids, the states ratified a constitutional amendment limiting every chief executive thereafter to two terms.)
Term limits would make the justices more accountable—if not to the people who appoint and confirm them, then at least to the voters who select the appointers and confirmers. At a time when the justices are acting like politicians, it’s a mechanism for reining in their power.
Today, part of the reason vacancies become such cataclysmic events is that no one knows when the next vacancy will occur. There were none, for example, between 1994 and 2005—more than two full presidential terms. It’s an incredibly strange system, to have this critical branch of government hinge on the health of a handful of honey trapped ( at a young age ), bribed or senile octogenarians
By doing away with this uncertainty, term limits could reduce the stakes of each confirmation battle and the acrimony that seems intrinsic to the process.
Because senior justices would sit in after unexpected departures, term limits would discourage strategic eleventh-hour retirements before a friendly president or Senate majority leader leaves office. And they would discourage presidents, eager to influence the Court for decades beyond their time in office and on earth, from prioritizing youth when searching for nominees. Instead, presidents could pick seasoned candidates who would bring a wealth of experience to the bench—in other words, the sort of candidates equipped to do the job best.
Term limits may raise the specter of the justice who begins thinking about life after the bench before actually leaving it.. Ex-justices might want to run for office, or become lobbyists, or begin lucrative careers as appellate litigators—an elite section of the Supreme Court bar made up of those who used to wear its robes. This must be snuffed. They can teach.
Congress can legislate term limits, since “senior status” justices would retain the benefits of life tenure and occasionally hear cases. The Court could find such a law constitutional by simply reinterpreting “the meaning of ‘good behavior’ to sanction a term limit.
I HAVE NOT SEEN US JUDGES WITH THE ABILITY TO APPLY BODMAS TO THE US CONSTITUTION TILL TODAY.. PEA BRAINED INDIAN JUDGES ARE WORSE.. EVEN A SMALL SCHOOL BOY OF 12 YEARS CAN DO..
THE PREPONDERANCE OF LAWS IN THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE CLEARLY LAID OUT IN A CRYSTAL "BODMAS " STYLE..... 1 + 5 x 6 - 3 + (4 - 2)... ... what part should you calculate first?.....
Calculate them in the wrong order, and you will get a wrong answer !... This is where BODMAS kicks in !......
OUR UNSUCCESSFUL LAWYERS TURNED COLLEGIUM JUDGES DONT HAVE THE BRAINS TO PRIORITIZE........
B- Brackets first.... O- Orders (ie Powers and Square Roots, etc.)..... DM- Division and Multiplication (left-to-right)..... AS- Addition and Subtraction (left-to-right)... ..
OUR CUNT JUDGES THINK SUN EXISTS FOR MENTALLY RETARDED KIDS TO PLAY SNAKE AND MONKEY SHADOW GAMES..
SORRY, THE SUN SUSTAINS LIFE ON THE PLANET.
THE ADVANCED AGE OF SOME SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAS AT TIMES LED TO A PROBLEM OF 'MENTAL DECREPITUDE' ON THE COURT, WHEREBY SOME JUSTICES HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY UNABLE TO FULFILL THEIR DUTIES DURING THE FINAL STAGES OF THEIR CAREER THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED.. YET NOBODY HAS DONE A DANG THING.. THESE JUDGES HAVE POWER OVER LIFE AND DEATH
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE LEFT LARGELY TO THEIR OWN DEVICES IN REGULATING THEIR WORK, WITH FEW CHOOSING TO TAKE SENIOR STATUS OR RETIRE ALTOGETHER WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A DISABILITY, DESPITE THEIR ELIGIBILITY TODO SO.. CAN WE DO THIS TO AIRLINE PILOTS OR BRAIN SURGEONS?
SINCE THE RATIFICATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION IN 1788, BY A BUNCH OF ROTHSCHILD AGENT FREEMAONS, THOUSANDS OF AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; HOWEVER, ONLY 27 HAVE BEEN APPROVED..
AMENDMENTS MUST BE PROPOSED BY TWO-THIRDS OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, OR BY A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CONVENED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES. THE LATTER HAS NEVER HAPPENED (ALL 27 AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY CONGRESS), BUT, IN EITHER CASE, A THREE-FOURTHS MAJORITY OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES (OR CONVENTIONS) IS REQUIRED TO RATIFY.
OF COURSE, ALMOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES “STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS,” HAS A PET CAUSE. MANY LIBERALS CONSIDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 3 — WHICH GIVES THE 37 PEOPLE AND 2,500 PRAIRIE DOGS LIVING IN NORTH DAKOTA THE SAME NUMBER OF SENATORS AS THE 40 MILLION RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA — AN AFFRONT TO DEMOCRACY.
A MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE WOULD LARGELY INSULATE THE JUSTICES FROM ACCUSATIONS THAT EITHER THEY ARE TOO OLD TO KEEP UP WITH THE WORKLOAD, OR THAT THEY ARE HANGING ON TO THEIR SEATS FOR PARTISAN REASONS. TODAY SENILITY COMES EARLY BECAUSE OF EATING PROCESSED / GMO FOODS
ARTICLE III JUDGES HAVE ENJOYED LIFE TENURE WITHOUT MANDATORY RETIREMENT SINCE THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION'S ADOPTION.. THIS IS ONLY BECAUSE GERMAN JEW ROTHSCHILD WANTED HIS AGENTS AS JUDGES..
THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN BRITAIN WAS ALSO PACKED WITH GERMAN JEW ROTHSCHILD’S AGENTS
WHILE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HAS A DEFINED NUMBER OF MEMBERS, THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS IS NOT FIXED. THE HOUSE OF LORDS IS THE ONLY UPPER HOUSE OF ANY BICAMERAL PARLIAMENT IN THE WORLD TO BE LARGER THAN ITS LOWER HOUSE.. THERE WERE NO WOMEN SITTING IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS UNTIL 1958.. THE ONLY REASON IS WOMEN WERE N0T ALLOWED TO BE FREE MASONS
IN AUGUST 2014, DESPITE THERE BEING A SEATING CAPACITY OF ONLY AROUND 230 TO 400 ON THE BENCHES IN THE LORDS CHAMBER, THE HOUSE HAD 774 ACTIVE MEMBERS (PLUS 54 WHO WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND OR VOTE, HAVING BEEN SUSPENDED OR GRANTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE). THIS MADE THE HOUSE OF LORDS THE LARGEST PARLIAMENTARY CHAMBER IN ANY DEMOCRACY—ALL ROTHSCHILD AGENTS.
IN AUGUST 2014, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS BARONESS BETTY BOOTHROYD REQUESTED THAT "OLDER PEERS SHOULD RETIRE GRACEFULLY" TO EASE THE OVERCROWDING IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. SHE ALSO CRITICISED SUCCESSIVE PRIME MINISTERS FOR FILLING THE SECOND CHAMBER WITH "LOBBY FODDER" IN AN ATTEMPT TO HELP THEIR POLICIES BECOME LAW.
SHE MADE HER REMARKS DAYS BEFORE A NEW BATCH OF PEERS WERE DUE TO BE CREATED AND SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM ACT 2014 WHICH ENABLED PEERS TO RETIRE OR RESIGN THEIR SEATS IN THE HOUSE, WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IMPOSSIBLE
IN AUGUST 2015, FOLLOWING THE CREATION OF A FURTHER 45 PEERS IN THE DISSOLUTION HONOURS, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE MEMBERS OF THE LORDS INCREASED TO 826.
IN LATE 2016, A LORD SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE FORMED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF OVERCROWDING, WITH FEARS MEMBERSHIP COULD SWELL TO ABOVE 1,000, AND IN OCTOBER 2017 THE COMMITTEE PRESENTED ITS FINDINGS. IN DECEMBER 2017, THE LORDS DEBATED AND BROADLY APPROVED ITS REPORT, WHICH PROPOSED A CAP ON MEMBERSHIP AT 600 PEERS, WITH A FIFTEEN-YEAR TERM LIMIT FOR NEW PEERS AND A "TWO-OUT, ONE-IN" LIMIT ON NEW APPOINTMENTS.
BELOW: WHEN THERE IS A FULL HOUSE , THE HALL REEKS OF BEEF FART, FILTERED THROUGH ADULT DIAPERS..
THE HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM ACT 2014 RECEIVED THE ROYAL ASSENT IN 2014. UNDER THE NEW LAW:--
ALL PEERS CAN RETIRE OR RESIGN FROM THE CHAMBER (PRIOR TO THIS ONLY HEREDITARY PEERS COULD DISCLAIM THEIR PEERAGES).
PEERS CAN BE DISQUALIFIED FOR NON-ATTENDANCE.
PEERS CAN BE REMOVED FOR RECEIVING PRISON SENTENCES OF A YEAR OR MORE
BY APRIL 2019, WITH THE RETIREMENT OF NEARLY ONE HUNDRED PEERS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM ACT 2014, THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE PEERS HAD BEEN REDUCED TO A TOTAL OF 782, OF WHOM 665 WERE LIFE PEERS
ALEXANDER HAMILTON DESCRIBED "GOOD BEHAVIOR" VARIOUSLY IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AS HAVING "THE REQUISITE INTEGRITY" AND "REQUISITE KNOWLEDGE," BEING OF "FIT CHARACTER," AND BEING "QUALIFIED TO CONDUCT [JUDICIAL OFFICE] WITH UTILITY AND DIGNITY."—NEVER A CERTIFICATE TO SIT ON A JUDGE’S CHAIR TILL YOU DIE
MANDATORY RETIREMENT PROPOSALS FAILED, LARGELY DUE TO JEW ROOSEVELT'S LACK OF SUPPORT.. BETWEEN 1946 AND 1955, AMERICAN BAR LEADERS CONDUCTED A MAJOR CAMPAIGN
TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT MANDATING THAT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES RETIRE AT SEVENTY-FIVE.. . IN 1954, JUDGES WITH FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE WERE AUTHORIZED TO RETIRE AT AGE SIXTY-FIVE.
THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980 AUTHORIZES ANY PERSON TO FILE A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT A FEDERAL JUDGE HAS ENGAGED IN “CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE EFFECTIVE AND EXPEDITIOUS ADMINISTRATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COURTS” OR HAS BECOME, BY REASON OF A MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, “UNABLE TO DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES” OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE.
THE RULES FOR JUDICIAL-CONDUCT AND JUDICIAL-DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS , AS AMENDED ON MARCH 12, 2019, PROVIDE MANDATORY AND NATIONALLY UNIFORM PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF MISCONDUCT AND DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT.
THE JEWISH DEEP STATE IS VERY MUCH WORRIED, WHAT SUPREME COURT JUDGES WILL DO ON MANDATORY RETIREMENT AFTER CROSSING AN AGE LIMIT.
WHO CARES !
THEY CAN FUCK THEMSELVES FOR ALL WE CARE !!
YOU CANT RUN THE JUDICIARY ON SENTIMENTS !!
VEENA CAN PRODUCE PITCHES IN A FULL FOUR OCTAVE RANGE.
GODDESS SARAWATI HOLDS IT .. VEENA IS MENTIONED IN RIG VEDA DOWNLOADED 400 CENTURIES AGO AND PENNED DOEN 70 CENTURIES AGO.
SARASWATI IS THE PRIMODIAL QUASAR -- NOT A WOMAN WHOM HER FATHER BRAHMA RAPED.
NAYA SHASTRA EXPOUNDS THIS MUSICAL INSTRUMENT STATING "THE HUMAN THROAT IS A SAREER VEENA, WHEN IT IS PERFECTED”
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL