Back in 1787 our founders got together in Philidelphia (it was then so small they didn't say "in" Philidelphia, they said "at" Philidelphia) and wrote a Constitution for The United States of America.  After a short ( 52 word) preamble, it began [1];

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, . . .

   The new Constitution gave Congress a fair amount of control over courts.  Two years later Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 to organize the Supreme Court and provide for a few lower court judges.  The Act also specified an oath that all federal judges must take upon entering office:

I, _________ do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.  So help me God.

   You will not be surprised to learn that our judicial employees, especially at the Supreme Court level, rarely follow that oath.  They cannot be depended opon to rule "impartially" and they frequently rule disagreeably to "the constitution, and laws of the United States." To test the first claim, simply take a look at the recent case of Bush v. Gore.  All the Democrats on the Court voted for Gore.  All but one Republican voted for Bush.  Numerous cases each year are decided by that same alignment; five Republican appointees vote for the conservative position and four mainly Democratic appointees vote for the liberal position.  That's about as 'partial' a performance as one could imagine [2].

   How about performing their duties "agreeably to the constitution."  Our judicial employees have been legislating in the name of the Constitution and imposing fraudulent constitutional amendments on "We the People" for two centuries [3].

   At first, this sort of employee fraud was an occasional thing; it happened every decade or so.  And the offense was usually committed only by our most trusted employees on the Supreme Court.  Now it happens numerous times each year.  And it goes on at all levels of the federal judiciary.  Our judicial branch of government has become a giant organized crime syndicate.

   A group of professors recently published the results of a research study which tested the hypothesis that federal circuit court judges often decide cases "in ideologically contested areas" according to "partisan bias," that is, they violate their oath of office.  Professor Cass Sunstein and his colleagues "examined a total of 4,488 published (federal circuit court) decisions, and the 13,464 associated individual judge’s votes" (a circuit court panel is usually composed of three judges).  All 4488 cases examined were decided since 1976, they were chosen by a neutral process, and most were in "ideologically contested areas."  Sunsteins review proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rulings of federal circuit judges are often driven by partisan bias.

"We show that variation in panel composition leads to dramatically different outcomes, in a way that creates serious problem for the rule of law. In the cases we analyze, a panel composed of three Democratic appointees issues a liberal ruling 61% of the time, whereas a panel composed of three Republican appointees issues a liberal ruling only 34% of the time" [4]

   It's perhaps instructive to reflect on the meaning of the words "liberal" and "conservative" as used above; there's really less difference than one might imagine.  As this is written, the U. S. Supreme Court has handed down over half-a-million pages of published opinions.  That literary treasure is growing at the rate of several thousand pages per year; and much of it purports to interpret the U. S. Constitution.  However, in many (if not most) cases, the opinions find no support in the language of the Constitution and do violence to the well documented intent of "We the People" when we allowed the relevant passages to be added to the Constitution.  Therefore, many of the opinions in those half-million pages are fraudulent [5].

   By unanimous agreement, our judicial employees at all levels follow those fraudulent Supreme Court precedents, rather than the well-documented intent of those who made the Constitution, in deciding constitutional issues.  So, in effect, we live under a bogus constitution rather than the real one; "We the People" are victims of a most pernicious form of employee fraud.

   Perhaps you think I'm wandering; I was going to tell you why there's really little difference between the "liberal" judges and the "conservative " ones.  Both groups tender allegiance to the bogus constitution, the one produced by employee fraud; rather than the real one, the one that begins "We the People."  However, "liberal" judges are usually looking to push the envelope, to enlarge the bogus constitution.  Lower court "liberal" judges are trying to enlarge it on their own - without Supreme Court action.  "Conservative" judges are usually looking to resist this effort.  They don't have the courage to defy fraudulent Supreme Court precedents, but they are willing, perhaps even anxious, to prevent lower courts from playing the same game.

   For over 200 years, Congress has failed to fix this problem.  The bogus constitution usually has a fair amount of political support, perhaps not majority support, but enough to keep dishonest judicial employees from being fired (impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate).  It's time to consider other remedies.

   By simple majority vote, Congress can remove the jurisdiction of all lower federal courts in some or all "ideologically contested areas."  It's not reasonable to leave employees with authority they've proven incapable of handling.  Congress can also remove the "appellate" jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in areas the justices have proven incapable of handling honestly.  There's no question that Congress has this power, it's plainly stated in the real Constitution in Article III, Section 2.

   The Court might refuse to obey, claiming that the Constitution does not really mean everything it says in Article III, Section 2.  But this is a managable problem.  With lower federal courts unable to follow their precedents, the justices could inflict only limited damage on our "Republican form of Government."  The Court can only handle about 100 cases per year.  If necessary, Congress can pass legislation to keep the justices busy deciding cases in various areas that are not "ideologically contested." Congress, with the cooperation of the President, can also forbid federal employees (the army, the FBI, and so forth) from enforcing judicial orders which do not meet minimum standards of impartiality and agreeability "to the constitution."

   Congress can sell the Supreme Court building to the Washington Zoo; it would make a marvelous Kangaroo House.  The justices could then be ordered to travel around the country and hold court in a different state each week, perhaps in a local VFW hall.  Something similar was done in the early years of the Republic.

   That measure would probably cut the Supreme Court's caseload in half, further reducing the damage it could inflict.  Besides, if the justices are determined to legislate in the name of "We the People," they should be forced to get out of Washington and find out what we think.

NOTES AND CITATIONS

1.  The Preamble says,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2.  See the web page, Bush v. Gore  Transcripts of the various opinions in Bush v. Gore can be found on the Internet.  See also the Supreme Court OPINIONS web site.

3.  See the web site, Trapped in the Temple of Karnak: An Unexpurgated History of the Supreme Court.

4.  This startling conclusion was reported in "Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation," by Cass R. Sunstein, David Schkade, and Lisa Michelle Ellman, an AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies Working Paper; No. 03-9.  The paper can be found on the Internet at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=442480

  The paper actually tested three hyporthesis,
A. "a judge’s votes, in ideologically contested areas, can be predicted by the party of the appointing president;"
B. "a judge’s ideological tendency, in such areas, will be amplified if the (three-judge Appeals Court) panel has two other judges appointed by an appointing president of the same political party;"
C. "a judge’s ideological tendency, in such areas, will be dampened if the panel has no other judge appointed by an appointing president of the same political party."
All three hypothesis were confirmed.