Was anyone too surprised that Donald Trump was convicted of all 34 felonies in New York City? That is a Libtard and cockroach stronghold. What puzzled me was the conduct of the trial judge, appointed, not voted in, by the way. In most states, he would likely receive some kind of condemnation for his behavior. So, I decided to find out more about judicial elections in New York.

As of September, 2021, judges for the New York Court of Appeals, where this case will likely be reviewed, were selected through appointment methods where the governor selects a nominee from a list provided by a nominating commission. New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division were appointed from justices in the Supreme Court, New York County Court judges were elected in partisan elections. Some lower court judges were elected in partisan elections. Some lower court judges were elected and some were appointed.

If you are still awake after that short history lesson, the bottom line for me is the Democrats are in full control of the New York legal system. States vary in the way that judges are placed on the bench. And how they retain that position. Under the New York constitution, elected judges terms begin on January 1st, following their election. The governor appoints each new judge from a list of qualified nominees, submitted by a judicial nominating commission. The nominee must be confirmed by the New York State Senate. They must be a resident and have practiced law in New York for at least 10 years. While all of that sounds pretty good, the fact still remains that the people are voting on ‘Governor approved nominees.

If you already know what makes a good judge, Juan Merchan fails on every point. Integrity: Honest, upright and committed to the rule of law. (You have to be joking.) Professional Competence: keen intellect, extensive legal knowledge, and strong writing ability: (Now I know you are pulling my leg!) Judicial Temperament: (I have never seen a judge with less judicial temperament. He’s a clown. The only thing missing is the red nose.) Experience: Strong record of professional excellence in the law. (All I see is an arrogant weasel, panning for the camera.) Service: Committed to public service and the administration of justice. (I would say anything but. His whole desire, which he makes no bones about it, to ‘get’ Donald Trump. He doesn’t care what he has to do to accomplish that.)

So, the world watched Merchan’s unbelievable performance in front of the camera. I was embarrassed for him. The next question should be, How do you hold someone like him accountable for their decisions and their behavior? Our system of government is carefully designed to guarantee fair and impartial courts while maintaining judicial accountability through a series of checks on judicial power. At least that is how the Founding Fathers designed it. When and how did it fall off of the rails?

It is supposed to work like this. If a party in a case believes a judge made an error, the party may appeal to a higher court. If citizens disagree with a courts interpretation of a law, they may petition the legislature to amend the law and change the law’s effect in the future. If citizens disagree with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution, they have the ultimate power to amend the Constitution to change its effects in the future. If a person thinks a judge has behaved unethically, the person may ask the Judicial Qualifications Commission to investigate. In these ways, the courts are accountable to the law, to the Constitution, and to the people. And, of course, ultimately, if the U.S. Supreme Court Justices agree to take the case, they can render a decision that will usually stand.

Did anyone see this judge censored or even removed from the case? I kept waiting for someone to yank him off of center stage, where he was performing for the cameras, with a shepherd's hook. Didn’t happen. I have never seen a more biased judge than this disgrace to the judicial system. It was very obvious from the beginning of the trial that judge Merchan was out to get Trump. The entire system did the most unethical things designed to find him guilty. First of all the statute of limitations had run out on what they perceived to be a crime. So, the length of limitations was expanded. Actions that had always been classified as misdemeanors were now felonies. The judge instructed the jury not to worry if they couldn’t come to a unanimous decision. A majority would rule. That is completely unconstitutional. By the way, the New York Supreme Court is not the state’s court of last resort. The New York Court of Appeals is the state’s highest court.

As for the jury, did anyone really expect anything but a unanimous thumbs down from a jury selected in a blue city, in a blue state? Besides which, most jurors are intimidated by judges and prosecutors. They don’t understand the power they have, so they don’t execute it. A juror has more power than a president, all of Congress and all the judges combined. No juror can be punished for voting ‘Not Guilty!” Any juror can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one juror should vote, “Not Guilty! For any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.

So, how did Merchan tell the jury, in good faith, it wasn’t necessary to have a unanimous vote for it to be a guilty verdict? He did it because he well knows that just one juror could have upset his very carefully constructed “Guilty’ vote and allow Trump to go free. Judges like Merchan have taken far too much power into their hands. As stated in a little booklet called, “The Citizen’s Handbook”,

“The judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of “Not Guilty” whatever the facts, they routinely tell the juries the opposite. Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made that argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court.

By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant, but no right to know about that power? But, more than logic has suffered. As originally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system, by introducing the common sense of the community. Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then citizens called for jury duty could teach the judges a needed lesson in civics.”