Denver Judge Orders Restraining Order Against Senate Democrats Over Speedy Bill Reading

[the_doc]

If you are arguing the validity of judicial review/Marbury v. Madison in general, then fine, you have a theoretical point.  Although that argument was lost more than 200 years ago, and not a single court since that time has found it to be invalid, nor has any state or the federal government moved to invalidate it by constitutional amendment.  So most of the country seems quite happy with judicial review even if you don't.

As I understand Marbury v. Madison, I do appreciate @IsailedawayfromFR's concerns about some of the jurisdiction issues involved in judicial review by any of the federal courts.  The federal courts--from top to bottom--have claimed jurisdiction over practically anything that could conceivably be brought to them at the "federal level" (?)--and that annoys me bigly.  But I believe that the SCOTUS's judicial review of purely and inarguably Constitutional issues was intended by our Framers, even if they didn't specify this in the Constitution. 

In short, I can't believe that the Supreme Court should be shut out of Constitutional squabbles.  We definitely need a supreme arbiter in purely Constitutional fights.  The Framers' creation of a Supreme Court is ultimately recognizing this. 

[Smokin Joe]

As I understand Marbury v. Madison, I do appreciate @IsailedawayfromFR's concerns about some of the jurisdiction issues involved in judicial review by any of the federal courts.  The federal courts--from top to bottom--have claimed jurisdiction over practically anything that could conceivably be brought to them at the "federal level" (?)--and that annoys me bigly.  But I believe that the SCOTUS's judicial review of purely and inarguably Constitutional issues was intended by our Framers, even if they didn't specify this in the Constitution. 

In short, I can't believe that the Supreme Court should be shut out of Constitutional squabbles.  We definitely need a supreme arbiter in purely Constitutional fights.  The Framers' creation of a Supreme Court is ultimately recognizing this.

Considring that one of SCOTUS's duties is to settle disputes between the States and the Federal Government, some framework would be necessary to consistently settle such disputes. The Constitution would be the relevant compact by which to address such grievances. In the instance where The People believed the Government had overstepped its bounds, whether through legislation or executive fiat, the SCOTUS provides the venue to determine if such grievances are valid, again in terms of the protections and limitations inherent in the Constitution. The court, in turn, can be overruled by the legislature, by Statute or Amendment. Thus the power has a check, a balance.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has been finding "rights" neither enumerated nor implied, and in at least one case, has rewritten law in contrast to its stated intent (the penalty clause of the ACA), and used that rewritten version to rule the law Constitutional. That is improper, and should be stopped.

Equally unfortunately, the Legislature lacks the motivation to repeal the ACA, and is divided on the issue of protecting human life, which it could do by passing legislation explicitly and legally defining when life begins, bringing the unborn under the penumbra of Constitutional protection.

Unless and until someone brings a case before the court (and the Court grants cert) that specifically addresses these issues, there can be no relief through the Court, and even then, that is not a sure thing.

The system is designed to be cumbersome, in that the various branches can dispute the actions of the others. That's what checks and balances are all about. Ideally, only universally acceptable actions or statutes would stand. In practice, that falls short of the mark.

The Colorado case, though, is an example of the State court holding the Legislature to a Constitutional Mandate, a procedure spelled out in the State Constitution, which the legislature sought to circumvent.
That is precisely the sort of thing the court is supposed to do.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's probably worthwhile noting that Colorado did not become a state, nor have a state constitution, until 1876.  That's more than 70 years after judicial review was recognized in Marbury v. Madison.  So, Colorado knew that judicial review was the default rule in all American jurisdictions to that point.

If Colorado did not wish to follow this default rule, then it would have made that clear in its own state constitution.  It did not do so, which demonstrates the intent of the people of Colorado to adopt that doctrine for their own state government.

[Bigun]

It's probably worthwhile noting that Colorado did not become a state, nor have a state constitution, until 1876.  That's more than 70 years after judicial review was recognized in Marbury v. Madison.  So, Colorado knew that judicial review was the default rule in all American jurisdictions to that point.

If Colorado did not wish to follow this default rule, then it would have made that clear in its own state constitution.  It did not do so, which demonstrates the intent of the people of Colorado to adopt that doctrine for their own state government.

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. -Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3. - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Will you kindly point out where I can find this power of judicial review you mention?  Try as I might, I can't find it.  Perhaps it's in a penumbra or some such thing.

[the_doc]

@
Will you kindly point out where I can find this power of judicial review you mention?  Try as I might, I can't find it.  Perhaps it's in a penumbra or some such thing.

I personally think it's in Article 3, Section 2, first clause, as follows:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, [etc.]

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's completely irrelevant.  You can argue all day long that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided (I disagree), and it doesn't change the proper role of the Colorado Supreme Court under the Colorado Constitution, which was written and ratified while Marbury v. Madison was the law of the land.

But to answer your question...I'd point to the first sentences of sections 1 and 2:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

A claim that a law passed by Congress violates the Constitution "arises under' the Constitution, and therefore comes within the judicial power of the Supreme Court.  That's the only reading that makes any logical sense.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason to include the Constitution at all in Section 2.

Presumably, you'd agree that the Federal court system (pursuant to section 1) can hear cases that allege a violation of laws passed by Congress.  Right?  Otherwise, you'd have established a court system with no jurisdiction over anything at all, which is nonsense.  And if the Supreme Court can here cases arising under federal laws, and the first sentence of Section 2 lists the judicial power of the courts as extending to "...this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties", without any distinction between those three things, then there is no logical reason to believe that the judicial power extends to laws, but not to the Constitution itself.

I've never quite understood this argument.   If you don't believe in judicial review, then the federal government could take away your guns, seize your property without compensation, quarter troops in your home, and throw you in jail without a trial...and there's not a damn thing you could do about it.  The courts would have no jurisdiction to hear your case.  What would be the good of a Bill of Rights if no entity had the power to protect it?

But as I said, that's irrelevant to the question of whether the Colorado courts have the power to strike down actions by the Colorado legislature.  Had Colorado not wanted to follow Marbury v. Madison -- which was completely up to Colorado -- it would have done so expressly.

[the_doc]

It's completely irrelevant.  You can argue all day long that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided (I disagree), and it doesn't change the proper role of the Colorado Supreme Court under the Colorado Constitution, which was written and ratified while Marbury v. Madison was the law of the land.

But to answer your question...I'd point to the first sentences of sections 1 and 2:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

A claim that a law passed by Congress violates the Constitution "arises under' the Constitution, and therefore comes within the judicial power of the Supreme Court.  That's the only reading that makes any logical sense.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason to include the Constitution at all in Section 2.

Presumably, you'd agree that the Federal court system (pursuant to section 1) can hear cases that allege a violation of laws passed by Congress.  Right?  Otherwise, you'd have established a court system with no jurisdiction over anything at all, which is nonsense.  And if the Supreme Court can here cases arising under federal laws, and the first sentence of Section 2 lists the judicial power of the courts as extending to "...this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties", without any distinction between those three things, then there is no logical reason to believe that the judicial power extends to laws, but not to the Constitution itself.

But as I said, that's irrelevant to the question of whether the Colorado courts have the power to strike down actions by the Colorado legislature.  Had Colorado not wanted to follow Marbury v. Madison -- which was completely up to Colorado -- it would have done so expressly.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Take your straw men away and look at this one case.

The judge is upholding the Constitution of the state he is a judge in, by ordering the legislature to follow the Constitutionally Mandated procedure in presenting and voting on a bill.

It really is that simple. You not only didn't answer my questions, you came back with a lot of irrelevant hoo haw about federal cases. This isn't. It is a State issue.

I am particularly distressed when someone has a fit about a judge ordering the legislature to actually follow the State Constitution. That sort of injunctive relief is what the court exists for. It isn't making new law, it isn't throwing law out. It is upholding the existing State Constitution. If you won't look at the merits of this case, you don't know what, in this instance, you are talking about--and you missed my opposition to MAKING LAW from the bench upthread.

The judge did not overrule the legislature, he made them follow the rules--their rules.
Perhaps you would prefer if legislatures everywhere were allowed to just run roughshod over their respective Constiutions. Oh wait, we already have that--especially in Congress.

Instead of being happy about a court ordering the legislature to adhere to the Constitution of that State, you're throwing an ongoing fit. What damned good is a Constitution if you aren't going to go by it?

Does a state have the right to disregard the state Constitution?  While I do not know exactly for Colorado if there are instances in which it is permissible, I would say no.

Does a Colorado state judge have the right to order the Colorado legislature to follow the state constitution?  I do not know.  That power may be vested in the state supreme court instead of a single judge.

Did the legislature follow the state constitution?  Apparently not.  Should they?  Yes.

To answer the specific questions you posed:

Let me ask you, what authority would you seek? How would you handle this?

I would seek the appropriate authority.  If the Colorado Constitution permits a single state judge to follow the Constitution under specified mechanics of review, then that judge is the appropriate authority.

The original poster asked the question does the judge have that authority.  Am still skeptical he does, but I am unfamiliar with the Constitution of Colorado.  It may reside in the state Supreme Court.

Now how does one address a legislature causing mischief by not following its Constitution?  Always difficult.  Sure, citizens can march on the state capitol, but that is atypical.  Rarely is any legislative body in this country in unanimity on issues, so the way the body is supposed to work is to have opinions of dissent aired by those not in agreement.  The more the numbers of dissenters and the more this dissension is broadcast, the less likely mischief will occur.  An informed electorate will also take care of the mischief makers at the next election, which is the primary reasons why there are elections.  Can the judicial force it?  Only by the compliance of the legislative.

Any reference I was making with the federal government was an attempt (looks like a weak one) to compare the Colorado situation with what we are more familiar with, not to somehow use the feds to 'take over' state business.  This is most definitely not a federal issue.

I am simply using this one example of judicial to muse on the assumed power by judicial that is now amongst us at every turn.

And I am serious when I ask the questions of a federal judge abusing a Constitutional authority by declaring he knows best how to allocate budgets in this country or the safety of the people over an above our duly-elected representatives or Executive.

This is a straw man of real actions by real judges in real situations.

When we are ruled by the unelected we are no longer free.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

As I understand Marbury v. Madison, I do appreciate @IsailedawayfromFR's concerns about some of the jurisdiction issues involved in judicial review by any of the federal courts.  The federal courts--from top to bottom--have claimed jurisdiction over practically anything that could conceivably be brought to them at the "federal level" (?)--and that annoys me bigly.  But I believe that the SCOTUS's judicial review of purely and inarguably Constitutional issues was intended by our Framers, even if they didn't specify this in the Constitution. 

In short, I can't believe that the Supreme Court should be shut out of Constitutional squabbles.  We definitely need a supreme arbiter in purely Constitutional fights.  The Framers' creation of a Supreme Court is ultimately recognizing this.

Ok, let's just assume this correct.  This is for SCOTUS, not a single federal judge. 

Right now, a single judge can put a stop on just about any Executive decision.  Presumably, he can do that for any action of Congress as well.

Do you believe the Framers intended that as well?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Considring that one of SCOTUS's duties is to settle disputes between the States and the Federal Government, some framework would be necessary to consistently settle such disputes. The Constitution would be the relevant compact by which to address such grievances. In the instance where The People believed the Government had overstepped its bounds, whether through legislation or executive fiat, the SCOTUS provides the venue to determine if such grievances are valid, again in terms of the protections and limitations inherent in the Constitution. The court, in turn, can be overruled by the legislature, by Statute or Amendment. Thus the power has a check, a balance.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has been finding "rights" neither enumerated nor implied, and in at least one case, has rewritten law in contrast to its stated intent (the penalty clause of the ACA), and used that rewritten version to rule the law Constitutional. That is improper, and should be stopped.

Equally unfortunately, the Legislature lacks the motivation to repeal the ACA, and is divided on the issue of protecting human life, which it could do by passing legislation explicitly and legally defining when life begins, bringing the unborn under the penumbra of Constitutional protection.

Unless and until someone brings a case before the court (and the Court grants cert) that specifically addresses these issues, there can be no relief through the Court, and even then, that is not a sure thing.

The system is designed to be cumbersome, in that the various branches can dispute the actions of the others. That's what checks and balances are all about. Ideally, only universally acceptable actions or statutes would stand. In practice, that falls short of the mark.

The Colorado case, though, is an example of the State court holding the Legislature to a Constitutional Mandate, a procedure spelled out in the State Constitution, which the legislature sought to circumvent.
That is precisely the sort of thing the court is supposed to do.

If Scotus has that authority, why is it that a single federal judge capable of over-ruling Executive and presumably Congress? 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It's completely irrelevant.  You can argue all day long that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided (I disagree), and it doesn't change the proper role of the Colorado Supreme Court under the Colorado Constitution, which was written and ratified while Marbury v. Madison was the law of the land.

But to answer your question...I'd point to the first sentences of sections 1 and 2:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

A claim that a law passed by Congress violates the Constitution "arises under' the Constitution, and therefore comes within the judicial power of the Supreme Court.  That's the only reading that makes any logical sense.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason to include the Constitution at all in Section 2.

Presumably, you'd agree that the Federal court system (pursuant to section 1) can hear cases that allege a violation of laws passed by Congress.  Right?  Otherwise, you'd have established a court system with no jurisdiction over anything at all, which is nonsense.  And if the Supreme Court can here cases arising under federal laws, and the first sentence of Section 2 lists the judicial power of the courts as extending to "...this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties", without any distinction between those three things, then there is no logical reason to believe that the judicial power extends to laws, but not to the Constitution itself.

I've never quite understood this argument.   If you don't believe in judicial review, then the federal government could take away your guns, seize your property without compensation, quarter troops in your home, and throw you in jail without a trial...and there's not a damn thing you could do about it.  The courts would have no jurisdiction to hear your case.  What would be the good of a Bill of Rights if no entity had the power to protect it?

But as I said, that's irrelevant to the question of whether the Colorado courts have the power to strike down actions by the Colorado legislature.  Had Colorado not wanted to follow Marbury v. Madison -- which was completely up to Colorado -- it would have done so expressly.

That argument seems to imply that Judicial is not part of the federal government.  It most certainly is.

And it also assumes the abuse comes from Executive or Congress.

That abuse could verily come from Judicial, as we see it all the time with extra-Constitution behavior being legislated from the bench.

And that is the crux of what I have brought forth, which is inarguably the least accountable of the three branches.

[Smokin Joe]

That argument seems to imply that Judicial is not part of the federal government.  It most certainly is.

And it also assumes the abuse comes from Executive or Congress.

That abuse could verily come from Judicial, as we see it all the time with extra-Constitution behavior being legislated from the bench.

And that is the crux of what I have brought forth, which is inarguably the least accountable of the three branches.

Okay, I see your point, but it is not relevant in this case.

The question is one of which court should have original jurisdiction in disputes over State or Federal Law.

If the dispute is between the individual and the State, that dispute should be taken up in the State courts first, and relief sought from SCOTUS if none is found at the State Level IF a question of Constitutionality can be raised through the inclusion clause and the Federal Constitution: i.e. if some Right has been violated in the process or in the original issue itself, if the State can be shown to be in violation of the Federal Constitution. Do I believe a Federal lower court judge should be able to shut down a State or Federal Law by a single ruling?
Outside of their District (nationwide)?

Like the rulings of the Ninth, for instance...

My answer would be that those rulings should only be valid for the jurisdiction of the court, not be applied across the entire nation. Those seeking broader injunctions should have to seek them in every jurisdiction. While a ruling from the Ninth might influence the court in the Sixth or Fourth Districts, it should not be summarily applied outside the Ninth District unless SCOTUS had ruled (or refused to grant cert) in concert.

If a lower Federal court rules against a State Constitution, for instance, that would be improper imho, because the issue is then one between the Federal Government and the State, I would think such issues would be under the primary jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, and not the lower court.

But, admittedly, I am not an attorney.

The Congress is supposed to be the check to the power of the courts, able to balance that legislatively, but the Congress we have couldn't find its collective hindparts with both hands and a flashlight, so they are pretty ineffective in that role.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That argument seems to imply that Judicial is not part of the federal government.  It most certainly is.

And it also assumes the abuse comes from Executive or Congress.

No, abuse can come from all three branches.  But the branches do operate as some restraint on each other, which is generally a positive thing.  And with respect to the specific issues I mentioned, it's inarguable.  Absent judicial review, gun rights and political speech would have be in the absolute toilet right now. Left-wing cities and states very likely would have passed laws suppressing speech they deemed offensive, and gun rights would be non-existent.

In any case, whether or not judicial review is desireable from your perspective, you asked where it was in the Constitution, and that question was answered.  Your response hasn't addressed that. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If Scotus has that authority, why is it that a single federal judge capable of over-ruling Executive and presumably Congress?

Because Congress stupidity gave those courts that authority.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to create -- and therefore limit the powers of -- courts inferior to the Supreme Court.   Congresses created the district courts and Courts of Appeal by statute, and it could easily pass laws limiting the power of those courts to issues nationwide injunction.  But it has chosen not to do so.  That's the fault of Congress, not the Constitutional structure, and not the power of judicial review in general.

[Bigun]

Because Congress stupidity gave those courts that authority.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to create -- and therefore limit the powers of -- courts inferior to the Supreme Court.   Congresses created the district courts and Courts of Appeal by statute, and it could easily pass laws limiting the power of those courts to issues nationwide injunction.  But it has chosen not to do so.  That's the fault of Congress, not the Constitutional structure, and not the power of judicial review in general.

Congress has much to answer for and especially so when it comes to federal courts.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Okay, I see your point, but it is not relevant in this case.

The question is one of which court should have original jurisdiction in disputes over State or Federal Law.

If the dispute is between the individual and the State, that dispute should be taken up in the State courts first, and relief sought from SCOTUS if none is found at the State Level IF a question of Constitutionality can be raised through the inclusion clause and the Federal Constitution: i.e. if some Right has been violated in the process or in the original issue itself, if the State can be shown to be in violation of the Federal Constitution. Do I believe a Federal lower court judge should be able to shut down a State or Federal Law by a single ruling?
Outside of their District (nationwide)?

Like the rulings of the Ninth, for instance...

My answer would be that those rulings should only be valid for the jurisdiction of the court, not be applied across the entire nation. Those seeking broader injunctions should have to seek them in every jurisdiction. While a ruling from the Ninth might influence the court in the Sixth or Fourth Districts, it should not be summarily applied outside the Ninth District unless SCOTUS had ruled (or refused to grant cert) in concert.

If a lower Federal court rules against a State Constitution, for instance, that would be improper imho, because the issue is then one between the Federal Government and the State, I would think such issues would be under the primary jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, and not the lower court.

But, admittedly, I am not an attorney.

The Congress is supposed to be the check to the power of the courts, able to balance that legislatively, but the Congress we have couldn't find its collective hindparts with both hands and a flashlight, so they are pretty ineffective in that role.

I agree on those limits you espouse for lower courts.

And I do not think the Founders demanded only attorneys have the ability to interpret what the Constitution says.  Otherwise, they would have stipulated that only lawyers could serve on federal courts.

[Bigun]

I agree on those limits you espouse for lower courts.

And I do not think the Founders demanded only attorneys have the ability to interpret what the Constitution says.  Otherwise, they would have stipulated that only lawyers could serve on federal courts.

You're right about there being no stipulation in the Constitution about who can serve as a judge on federal court benches but, as a practical matter, only lawyers are allowed to do that these days.  After all, we allow lawyers to write the laws don't we.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Another example of judicial mischief.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/judge_blocks_oil_drilling_in_wyoming_because_of_climate_change.html

Thus one looks particularly abusive.

[Bigun]

@IsailedawayfromFR I knew that the name Rudolph Contreras was familiar to me for some reason.

Rudolph Contreras is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In December 2017 he briefly presided over the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, accepting Flynn's guilty plea but was later recused from the case. He is also serving as a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/08/the-big-ugly-why-u-s-district-court-judge-rudolph-contreras-recusal-from-mike-flynn-case-is-a-big-deal/

[txradioguy]

Ok, let's just assume this correct.  This is for SCOTUS, not a single federal judge. 

Right now, a single judge can put a stop on just about any Executive decision.  Presumably, he can do that for any action of Congress as well.

Do you believe the Framers intended that as well?

The Framers intended the Judicial to be the weakest of the three branches.

IMO thanks in large part to FDR and a decade or so later the long lasting decisions and actions by the Warren court greatly changed that dynamic.

And Liberals at all levels have used it to their advantage.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Framers intended the Judicial to be the weakest of the three branches.

IMO thanks in large part to FDR and a decade or so later the long lasting decisions and actions by the Warren court greatly changed that dynamic.

And Liberals at all levels have used it to their advantage.

Yes, in spite of that, some here believe judicial is the ultimate authority in all matters.

The Founders who broke free from the yoke of unelected authorities would never had placed the entire government of their new country into the hands of another group of unelected authorities.

[Smokin Joe]

You're right about there being no stipulation in the Constitution about who can serve as a judge on federal court benches but, as a practical matter, only lawyers are allowed to do that these days.  After all, we allow lawyers to write the laws don't we.

I had a relative who was an Orphans Court Judge, who was not a member of the bar. He served past the age when the lawyers were required by that State Bar to retire from the bench. When approached about that, he said, "I'm not a lawyer, I don't have to go by your rule".