Sorry, life has been busy. 🙂

Courts must be held to standards for a democracy to survive. The Supreme Court, over the past 10-15 years, has began leaning into autocratic behaviors, using the “Shadow Docket” to release orders with NO explanation of their reasoning, and have held some decisions to the last possible moment to, seemingly, give advantages to particular persons or parties. So, let’s call this one:

The Transparency in Courts Amendment

Once a Court, at any level, up to an including the Supreme Court, has reached a verdict, the verdict must be released immediately. The explanatory opinions must be released within one month thereafter. Judges or justices may not delay the ruling by withholding the release of their dissenting opinions. Justice delayed is justice denied.

No opinion or ruling may be issued on any matter by any court without a written opinion explaining the reasoning behind the ruling within the required time period, along with which judges or justices voted which way on the issue. No unexplained “shadow dockets,” all opinions must stand, along with their reasoning, in the purifying light of the sun, and the judges and justices may not hide anonymously from their decisions and reasonings.

Judges and Justices may not accept ANY gifts or income from any source during their tenure on the bench, nor any unreasonably large income of any form for ten years after leaving the bench.

This would address both issues: no delaying opinions/decisions for any reason, and no issuing of orders without standing responsible for the same. The last paragraph would address the lack of rigorous standards, particularly (currently) for the Supreme Court.

Judges and Justices could only speak at events if they pay for their own travel and lodging. They may publish books and videos only if they do so for no payment and/or all proceeds go the government’s general fund. They may not accept forgiveness of loans. They may not be the recipients of any kind of contest, gambling, or other form of “mana from heaven.” The last line of this amendment is absolute. Judges and Justices serve as the final line of defense for democracy, and those who choose to do so must remain above reproach, and must take to the bench knowing that their monetary reward will remain solely their government salary and benefits. If it looks like a payoff to a duck, it’s probably weeds from the bottom of the pond.

-Everett

Given that liars and cheaters always want to rewrite history, and transparency in government is crucial to a well functioning democracy, I propose:

The Library Amendment

All museums, monuments, the National Archives and Records Administration, Library of Congress, Copyrights, Patents, and governmental record keeping shall be separated from the other governmental branches into its own co-equal LIBRARY branch of government. All records from other branches of government must be filed, in a timely fashion, with the LIBRARY branch for archiving.

The LIBRARY shall be responsible for maintaining and preserving the records reflecting the history of the country, and dispensing that information to the public in the form of copies, reports, pamphlets, books, audio, video and any other compilations and media that is desirable or required by law.

The LIBRARY shall be run by the Librarian and the Assistant Librarian. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be responsible for receiving nominations for Librarian and counting votes for Librarian but shall have no other role. The Librarian shall be appointed by majority vote of all Federal District Judges for a single 11-year term. The Librarian shall select the Assistant Librarian, and the Assistant Librarian shall become the Librarian if the Librarian is unable to complete their 11-year term.
The LIBRARY duties must be performed in an impartial, purely majority-of-the-evidence fashion. To do otherwise is a breach of the Librarian’s Oath of Office and cause for removal/dismissal from any office of the Library.

Classified documents may be withheld for no longer than 95 years or until de-classified by Congress, the Attorney General, the Chief Justice, the President or the Librarian, whichever comes first.

The LIBRARY may be sued in Federal Courts for improperly withheld records or if dispensed information is believed to be incorrect or incomplete, and the outcome is to be based solely upon the preponderance of the evidence and the laws of the United States.

Congress must fund the Library, at a minimum, to sufficiently to carry out its information storage and dispensing services. The LIBRARY may charge fees for making and distributing copies of records, but those fees may not be excessive.

The Librarian must issue an annual State of the Library report to Congress, which must also be stored in the Library and made available to the Public like any other record.

The Librarian may appoint an Inspector General, who may appoint Marshals and investigate whether records are being properly provided to the LIBRARY, and together with the Librarian, may issue subpoenas and search warrants to seize governmental records that are being withheld from the Library.

Too many governmental critters and hirelings try to hide what they do and/or try to distort what’s been done by those before them. The Library would serve as a counter-weight to those democracy-destroying efforts, and provide another co-equal branch of government to help strengthen the government against non-democratic agents.

Having the Librarian appointed by vote of all Federal District Judges would somewhat insulate the Library from partisanship issues.

-Everett