The Deep State Isn't A Conspiracy

[MeganC]

It has taken me several years to come to the conclusion in the title of this essay: The Deep State Isn't A Conspiracy

Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely conspiracies within the Deep State, but I no longer believe that the Deep State itself is proof of some all-encompassing criminal organization out of a James Bond novel.

To borrow from the wisdom of Judge Robert Bork, it is a syndrome.

In his seminal work Slouching Towards Gomorrah  Judge Bork wrote of the ever-present apparatus of government and the syndrome of government to embrace and enable entropy and decline.

It has been roughly eighteen years since Judge Bork's book was first put into my hands and it has fermented in my mind ever since.

And I realize that he was right. But perhaps he did not go far enough in his assessment of just how deep the rot went.

Due to some negative personal experiences with law enforcement I have long been a critic of the abuse of power that permeates American law enforcement in my lifetime.

I'll start with a simple example of what I mean.

The United States Supreme Court and numerous Federal, State, and lower courts have long asserted the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech to include both offensive speech and offensive speech directed at law enforcement. That means that everyone reading this in the USA has the right to look a police officer in the eye and say, "F*ck you!"

Yet at the same time, everyone reading this in the USA takes it for granted that despite the police being told repeatedly that this is a clearly established right it's still very likely that they will retaliate against you for exercising this right. They may retaliate by ticketing you, arresting you for 'obstruction' or 'resisting arrest', they may violently beat you, and in some circumstances they may even kill you for both challenging their authority and for bruising their ego.

They can do these things because their fellow officers, prosecutors, and many courts will cover for them with things like qualified immunity or saying that the response was within department policy. Never mind that the Constitutional questions have been clearly resolved. These people do not answer to the Constitution. Most of them are wholly ignorant of it.

These people do not answer to their citizens, their superiors, their mayors, or etc.

Like we see in the news today there are whole segments of Federal agencies that are unaccountable to the Secretaries appointed by the President to oversee these agencies. FBI Director Kash Patel this very day is confronting just such a problem with parts of the FBI who do not answer to him because they don't care to.

And really, this is the frustrating problem about the Deep State is that it isn't one big conspiracy that can be uprooted and expunged.

It is tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of government employees at all levels who do whatever the hell they want to do. And they do so with utter impunity.

There are people with access to government funds who commit gross acts of fraud and they get away with it.

There are teachers who keep pushing gender ideology even in states where doing so is illegal. In many cases their administrators and school superintendents approve of these acts even if the elected school board does not.

There's the building inspector who refuses to issue your building permit even though you complied with every last requirement.

There's the cops who show up at a home at 3am ostensibly to serve a warrant when they have the wrong address, the warrant they have is not a search warrant, they do not have the authority for a violent no-knock entry, yet even knowing all of the above they do it anyway. Why? Because they want to.

This is the Deep State.

It is the managerial state and the bureaucratic state that are not at all constrained by laws, regulations, policies. codes, ethics, or conscience.

They answer to no one.

The Pink Floyd song Dogs of War speaks to this with a certain line:

Even our Masters don’t know the webs we weave

But what is the solution?

Less government is the only workable solution. 

- Megan

[Bigun]

 

[DefiantMassRINO]

There's a stochastic Deep State of unelected bureaucrats and judges.

To get of the bureaucratic lifers, you can do re-orgs and downsizings.  It's hard to fire them, but it is much easier to eliminate their positions.

As far as judges, judges who are above the juducial median of rulings overturned by higher courts should be inelligible for promotion or appointment to higher courts.  Keep the bottom 50% from ever moving up.

[MeganC]

As far as judges, judges who are above the juducial median of rulings overturned by higher courts should be ineligible for promotion or appointment to higher courts.  Keep the bottom 50% from ever moving up.

That's a tough one.

Circa 1978 if a Federal judge ruled against gun control it was very likely that his ruling would be overturned by the higher courts. Despite the judge reading the Second Amendment clearly his rulings on the 2A would have been routinely overturned in that period.

And a good judge would be removed.

Limiting judges to specified terms where they'd come up for reappointment would be a remedy.

Like ten years for a Federal Judge. That would allow the judge to be appointed by one Congress and then have to come back a decade later to be reappointed by a significantly different Congress and a completely different President.

Just a thought.

[Kamaji]

That's a tough one.

Circa 1978 if a Federal judge ruled against gun control it was very likely that his ruling would be overturned by the higher courts. Despite the judge reading the Second Amendment clearly his rulings on the 2A would have been routinely overturned in that period.

And a good judge would be removed.

Limiting judges to specified terms where they'd come up for reappointment would be a remedy.

Like ten years for a Federal Judge. That would allow the judge to be appointed by one Congress and then have to come back a decade later to be reappointed by a significantly different Congress and a completely different President.

Just a thought.

That would require a constitutional amendment.  Article 3 judges have life tenure and can only be removed by impeachment. 

[MeganC]

That would require a constitutional amendment.  Article 3 judges have life tenure and can only be removed by impeachment.

A Constitutional Amendment is not an insurmountable issue. Difficult, yes. But only because the inertia of entrenched government prefers the status quo.

An Article V Convention of the States would be able to bypass the entrenched government.

[Bigun]

Article III
Section 1

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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

That means the congress can reorganize all federal courts below SCOTUS any time it chooses to do so.

[andy58-in-nh]

That means the congress can reorganize all federal courts below SCOTUS any time it chooses to do so.

Congress can eliminate the Federal district courts, if it so chooses. It won't, but it is empowered to do so under Art. III section 1.

Much of what we today recognize as the "Deep State" is the result of Congress voluntarily ceding its power and delegating essentially legislative functions to a vast army of Federal bureaucrats.

[Kamaji]

That means the congress can reorganize all federal courts below SCOTUS any time it chooses to do so.

It doesn’t mean they can remove already seated federal judges. Once appointed they have lifetime tenure.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What is a lifetime judge appointment supposed to do without a court to preside over?  He can be judge of nothing.

It doesn’t mean they can remove already seated federal judges. Once appointed they have lifetime tenure.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It doesn’t mean they can remove already seated federal judges. Once appointed they have lifetime tenure.

That is a called a judge without a job, as there is no seat for the ass to rest on.

JWAJ for short.

[Kamaji]

What is a lifetime judge appointment supposed to do without a court to preside over?  He can be judge of nothing.

I’m sure that many of them won’t have a single problem continuing to draw $250k a year in salary, plus benefits, at taxpayer expense.  Since we still need judges, all your plan does is double up the taxpayer bill for judges.  There are currently about 800 federal judges give or take.  Make half of them redundant, and you’ve given taxpayer a $100 million, plus, annual bill to pay people to do nothing. 

Wow.  Great plan there. 

[DefiantMassRINO]

What is the financial, economic, and political cost of bad judges ruling on the bench?

That $100 million would be a sunk cost to liberate the Federal Judiciary from the Deep State actors.

We already pay Republican Reps and Senators to do nothing.

I’m sure that many of them won’t have a single problem continuing to draw $250k a year in salary, plus benefits, at taxpayer expense.  Since we still need judges, all your plan does is double up the taxpayer bill for judges.  There are currently about 800 federal judges give or take.  Make half of them redundant, and you’ve given taxpayer a $100 million, plus, annual bill to pay people to do nothing. 

Wow.  Great plan there.

[roamer_1]

Exactly right. Small government is the only answer.

Keep it small and hungry, and it will do stupid pet tricks for you.
Let it get big and fat, and it will eat you in your sleep.

[Kamaji]

What is the financial, economic, and political cost of bad judges ruling on the bench?

That $100 million would be a sunk cost to liberate the Federal Judiciary from the Deep State actors.

We already pay Republican Reps and Senators to do nothing.

Don’t guess. Get reasonable numbers, or stop farting around.  Hiving off the current federal court system and putting a brand new clone in its place is going to be a hideously expensive proposition, and if you want people to accept that cost, then you have to prove that it’s the cheaper alternative. 

[roamer_1]

That would require a constitutional amendment.  Article 3 judges have life tenure and can only be removed by impeachment.

Impeachment is seldom exercised. Life appointment is not the problem... It's leaving the bad ones in there that's the problem.

[roamer_1]

Congress can eliminate the Federal district courts, if it so chooses. It won't, but it is empowered to do so under Art. III section 1.

Much of what we today recognize as the "Deep State" is the result of Congress voluntarily ceding its power and delegating essentially legislative functions to a vast army of Federal bureaucrats.

Posted for emphasis. I have often said that the cure is a congress jealous of its powers. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I’m sure that many of them won’t have a single problem continuing to draw $250k a year in salary, plus benefits, at taxpayer expense.  Since we still need judges, all your plan does is double up the taxpayer bill for judges.  There are currently about 800 federal judges give or take.  Make half of them redundant, and you’ve given taxpayer a $100 million, plus, annual bill to pay people to do nothing. 

Wow.  Great plan there.

Most on this board would gladly accept paying for government employees to do nothing.

It is far less damaging to the country than the malfeasance they are engaged in.

[Kamaji]

Most on this board would gladly accept paying for government employees to do nothing.

It is far less damaging to the country than the malfeasance they are engaged in.

Prove it. Numbers, not guesses.  Furthermore, please provide a basis for believing thst creating a second parallel federal judicial force won’t simply replicate the same problems for which this is the suggested solution.  Each new judge is subject to the same appointment/confirmation process the judges you’re bitching about went through. If the process didn’t keep them out the first time, what on Earth possesses anyone to think it’ll keep them out in the new judicial system?