Me vs. The Supremes -- Epilogue?

My third suit against the U.S. Supreme Court sought the forfeiture of their offices as Justices for "misbehavior" in office in violation of Article III's "good behavior" requirement. As I expected, eight of the nine justices disqualified themselves from hearing the case as they were Defendants to the suit in an order entered on February 26. In that order, they invoked 28 U.S.C. §2109 which states:

In any other case brought to the Supreme Court for review, which cannot be heard and determined because of the absence of a quorum of qualified justices, if a majority of the qualified justices shall be of opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next ensuing term, the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.

The order has generated some publicity. Am I, as one influential commentator stated about me: "a hazard to his clients and to taxpayers" in pursuing this suit. Or am I, like the photo above crazy, but crazy like a fox? Maybe, maybe not; but now, for the first time, I can reveal the method to my madness . . .

My overarching concern was most eloquently stated by Patrick Henry who reportedly said:

Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny.

I believe, we now live under that prophesied "judicial tyranny" because Judges – and Justices – have relieved themselves of the Constitutionally-established "checks" upon their power. To indelibly establish this point, I commenced these three separate suits against the Supreme Court and its Justices.

Now, a brief foray into Supreme Court arcanum is necessary to understand what I have done and why. When a person petitions the United States Supreme Court for certiorari – that is to review a lower court decision – the Supreme Court either grants or denies the petition. In the first instance, the case is then heard and a written decision is rendered. That happens less that 1% of the time.

In the second instance, the denial of certiorari -- which happens 99% of the time -- acts as a legal nullity. "The denial of a petition for certiorari from a state court judgment . . .has no legal significance. . . ." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953). Moreover, a "denial of certiorari may be motivated, among other reasons, by a desire to have different aspects of an issue further illumined by the lower courts." Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950). Read another way – this means that politics – not the rule of law – controls when the Supreme Court hears a case.

Thus, I could – and did – repeatedly petition the Supreme Court to hear grotesque violations of fundamental and constitutional rights by the Florida Courts and Florida Bar. Yet the Supreme Court was at liberty to -- and did -- ignore me thereby shielding their brethren in Florida from judicial review or ruling on lawsuits which sought to re-impose the "checks" upon the judiciary.

Hence, I realized that so long as the Fox was guarding the Hen House, I would never see a Chicken, so to speak. Thus, eight years ago, I commenced this legal foray to establish the record which would – I hope – force the legislative branch to action to remedy the "judicial tyranny" under which we live.

For when the Supreme Court invoked in the second and third suits against them 28 U.S.C. §2109 to avoid adjudication, they in fact did adjudicate and create binding legal precedent which I hope will come back to haunt them. That is because by invoking 28 U.S.C. §2109, they affirmed the judgment of the circuit court "with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court".

What does that mean? As the Court noted in Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977), the precedential effect of a such an affirmance extends to "the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Stated another way, the Supreme Court has by invoking 28 U.S.C. §2109 summarily affirmed the lower courts' decisions in the two cases against them.

In Hutto v. Davis , 454 U.S. 370, 374 (1982), the Supreme Court recognized that "unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."

Thus, the "precedential effect" of "the precise issues presented" in my second and third cases against the Supreme Court and its Justices are now the supreme law of the land and binding on all the lower federal courts.

This blog has gone on long enough today and if I continue, I risk losing blog status and moving into Law Review status. Hence, I will discuss the "the precise issues presented" in my second and third cases against the Supreme Court and its Justices and the implications they have for the future of judicial tyranny in succeeding posts to this blog.