[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

How does a Grand Jury get set into motion, can Napolitano be held accountable for restricting border and interior enforcement?

How would the Judiciary generally view such a thing?

Ilbegone I've thought the same. I think that we can as a response to the unwilling politicians and legal entities that are unwilling to perform on the issue of illegal immigration we can, instead of going back to the borders as we did in 2005, gather under the concept of the American Grand Jury.

The idea is to make the needed accusations against those in power who are aiding and abetting the illegal invasion of this country. In addition we can protest for the removal from office and to have the offenders tried through the court system (even though they own it). This would only have impact if we can get media coverage.

The American Grand Jury can convene and try the politicians and such presenting evidence of their bias against the American People and their favoritism to the illegal alien.

Maybe I'm just desperate but at least it is an idea.

There has to be something.

I'm not sure how much "they" own the courts, It may be a crap shoot depending on funds to pursue the strategy and quality of legal counsel retained.

Here in California, as I recall, judges are nominated by the governor then voted on by the population.

At the federal level, judges are nominated by the President and voted on and ratified by the senate. There are thousands of federal judges. With all the other decisions a president has to make, the president probably won't know much about the candidates he is advised to nominate - sometimes by members of his own party in the senate. As well, an attorney who accepts the position will most likely take a huge pay cut to do so, so the acceptance of the offer could boil down to this:

1) extremely dedicated to whatever the candidate perceives to be justice
...A) Is recognized for fair mindedness and fair application of law
...B) Has an agenda which is supported by the President and majority of the Senate at the time of nomination, or is willing to whore himself out for a title.

This is one reason for so many different decisions by different judges on similar issues at the same time and different rulings by appellate courts from the very bottom up to the supreme court.

2) The position is a stepping stone to market oneself as having inside knowledge and experience IE: Elrod Scheister, Att'y at Law, Former Federal Judge

3) A crony on his last gig who couldn't buy another job and lucked out getting lifetime employment on the taxpayers' nickle.

There's lot's of room for incompetence and biased rulings in all three scenarios.



Immigration court is different. An immigration judge is ultimately an employee of the president through the Department of Justice.


I'm not sure about the media. Most "coverage" is either biased opinion presented as fact or sensationalized bullshit. But, I think the story would find its way out.