I saw an interesting Youtube short today that posed a really good question:

If a bartender can be arrested and jailed for over-serving a drunk who kills someone in a DUI accident, why can't we arrrest and jail judges who release violent criminals who kill people after their release?

This is a serious question. How and why do they have immunity from their decisions? What recourse do we really have short of torches and pitchforks?

The mechanism in place: impeachment.

Not a useful mechanism. We need something far more permanent and painful to stop this judicial coup.

The Feds have a chance to use an iron fist on these low life’s. Just one chance. If they blow it, then it will be up to the people to correct the situation.

Useful or not, it’s what currently on the book. Don’t like it? Then let’s hear what exactly is doable legally and not some hand waving nebulous concept. No I’m serious. I don’t like what’s going on with these activist judges at all, but what can we do legally?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
The mechanism in place: impeachment.

In a functioning and normal society, I would agree with you. Responsible people would say, "Nope, sorry, you're done".

We don't live in a normal, moral, or functional society. While it could happen, judges just simply are not impeached. So what really is the solution? Do we need to champion legislation that holds them criminally liable? If it's good enough for a bartender, it should be good enough for a judge.

For thousands of years, there has been issues with judges. Jesus said “listen to what the unjust judge says…” Seems every generation is going to have them. Luke 18 for reference.

The legislature needs to fix it, but they will not. We're well on our way to becoming a judicial oligarchy.

quote:

Do we need to champion legislation that holds them criminally liable?

Can you prove any crime was committed, of all the anti-Trump rulings this past year?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Do we need to champion legislation that holds them criminally liable?

Can you prove any crime was committed, of all the anti-Trump rulings this past year?

What crime did the bartender commit?

They don't have to go that far. Stop national injunctions and judge shopping.

Don’t care about the bartender. I’m asking you a specific question. You want to hold these judges ”criminally liable”. So I ask you, what crimes did they commit?

A little district judge with a political opinion isn't necessarily a crisis except when they have the power to routinely overrule the executive.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
They don't have to go that far. Stop national injunctions and judge shopping.

That is certainly important, but it's bigger than that (and more widespread than that) IMO.

Judges often will release people who go on to commit horrific crimes. While nobody is perfect, sometimes it is so obvious to us non-legally trained people that it just makes you scratch your head. How does this happen and why are there no consequences?

How do we rectify this?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Don’t care about the bartender. I’m asking you a specific question. You want to hold these judges ”criminally liable”. So I ask you, what crimes did they commit?

Short answer: I don't know.

Just like I don't know what crime the bartender committed.

Again, should we champion legislation that makes it a specific crime and what would that crime be?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I saw an interesting Youtube short today that posed a really good question:

If a bartender can be arrested and jailed for over-serving a drunk who kills someone in a DUI accident, why can't we arrrest and jail judges who release violent criminals who kill people after their release?

This is a serious question. How and why do they have immunity from their decisions? What recourse do we really have short of torches and pitchforks?

Don't stop with the judge - extend the penalty to every entity responsible (attorney, DA, politician)

Judges have absolute immunity from civil suits for actions taken within their judicial discretion. The justification seems to be preservation of judicial independence.

granting bail is within judicial discretion.

Judges do not have immunity for violations of criminal laws. But poor judgment in granting bail obviously is not a violation of criminal law, to the contrary it is expressly permitted by law.

judges can be impeached, or reversed on appeal or face disciplinary charges for acting improperly but not so much for bad decisions within their discretion under the laws in effect. Or where judges are elected, voted out of office.

So the laws on bail need to be changed to prevent what you describe.

One of Texas solutions was 61.9% of voters passed proposition 12 in November 2025 which amended Texas' constitution in regards to its state commission on judicial conduct:

the governor now appoints 7 out of 13 members of the commission (previously 5 out of 13).

the authority and process for sanctioning and removing judges if misconduct is found to be willful or persistent.

authorized it to suspend judges without pay and, in certain cases, ban them from future judicial office

Full text available here

You can tell you're on the right side of an issue when the police officers unions are for it, and the editorial boards of all of the big city newspapers are against it.

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

It just seems to me that there needs to be some kind of accountability for piss-poor decisions that are made.

We see daily reports of felonious crimes being committed by people released from custody for previous felonious crimes.

How do we stop this?

Nobody is perfect, and we can't expect judges to be perfect either, but with their presumed experience and education, they should be held to a higher standard and should be accountable for the decisions that they make..somehow. Physicans are. Plumbers are. Why are judges not, and how do we fix that?

"Fe-e-e-e-lings" and what is provable in a court of law are two different things. You can't prove the judge expressly intended harm, let alone to a specific person. Decisions, even wrong or stupid ones, are not grounds for impeachment, either.

Why is intention a necessary element? Negligence doesn’t require intent. Every job, especially one so critical to societal function requires some standard of integrity, competency. When judges let their feelings influence their rulings and bad outcomes happen, why shouldn’t they be explicitly held accountable?

Impeachment is a vote. Majority doesn’t make it right. There should be blind standards.