The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.

What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?

**whembly**

Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:
Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear

Does the latest release of Hillary’s State Department emails include highly classified U.S. intelligence?

Back in October I told you that Hillary Clinton’s email troubles were anything but over, and that the scandal over her misuse of communications while she was Secretary of State was sure to get worse. Sure enough, EmailGate continues to be a thorn in the side of Hillary’s presidential campaign and may have just entered a new, potentially explosive phase with grave ramifications, both political and legal.

The latest court-ordered dump of her email, just placed online by the State Department, brings more troubles for Team Hillary. This release of over 3,000 pages includes 66 “Unclassified” messages that the State Department subsequently determined actually were classified; however, all but one of those 66 were deemed Confidential, the lowest classification level, while one was found to be Secret, bringing the total of Secret messages discovered so far to seven. In all, 1,340 Hillary emails at State have been reassessed as classified.

There are gems here. It’s hard to miss the irony of Hillary expressing surprise about a State Department staffer using personal email for work, which the Secretary of State noted in her own personal email. More consequential was Hillary’s ordering a staffer to send classified talking points for a coming meeting via a non-secure fax machine, stripped of their classification markings. This appears to be a clear violation of Federal law and the sort of thing that is a career-ender, or worse, for normals. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee termed that July 2011 incident “disturbing,” and so it is to anyone acquainted with U.S. Government laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified material.

But the biggest problem may be in a just-released email that has gotten little attention here, but plenty on the other side of the world. An email to Hillary from a close Clinton confidant late on June 8, 2011 about Sudan turns out to have explosive material in it. This message includes a detailed intelligence report from Sid Blumenthal, Hillary’s close friend, confidant, and factotum, who regularly supplied her with information from his private intelligence service. His usual source was Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA senior official and veteran spy-gadfly, who conveniently died just before EmailGate became a serious problem for Hillary’s campaign.

However, the uncredited June 8 memo, which Blumenthal labeled as “Confidential” – his personal classification system, apparently – but which the State Department has labeled Unclassified, doesn’t appear to be from Drumheller, whose assessments were written just like CIA intelligence reports. This is not.

Remarkably, the report emailed to Hillary by “sbwhoeop,” which was Blumenthal’s email handle, explains how Sudan’s government devised a clandestine plan, in coordination with two rebel generals, to secure control of oil reserves in the disputed region of Abyei. This is juicy, front-page stuff, straight out of an action movie, about a region of Africa that’s of high interest to the American and many other governments, and the report is astonishingly detailed.

Its information comes from a high-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and Blumenthal’s write-up repeatedly states the sources – there turn out to be more than one – are well placed and credible, with excellent access. It’s the usual spytalk boilerplate when you want the reader to understand this is golden information, not just gossip or rumors circulating on the street, what professionals dismiss as “RUMINT.” Needless to add, this is generating a lot of talk in Sudan, where the media is asking about this shady affair – and how Sid Blumenthal, who’s not exactly an old Africa hand, knew all about it.

But the most interesting part is that the report describes a conversation “in confidence” that happened on the evening of June 7, just one day before Blumenthal sent the report to Secretary Clinton. It beggars the imagination to think that Sid’s private intelligence operation, which was just a handful of people, had operators who were well placed in Sudan, with top-level spy access, able to get this secret information, place it in a decently written assessment with proper espionage verbiage, and pass it all back to Washington, DC, inside 24 hours. That would be a feat even for the CIA, which has stations and officers all over Africa.

In fact, the June 8, 2011 Blumenthal report doesn’t read like CIA material at all, in other words human intelligence or HUMINT, but very much like signals intelligence or SIGINT (for the differences see here). I know what SIGINT reports look like, because I used to write them for the National Security Agency, America’s biggest source of intelligence. SIGINT reports, which I’ve read thousands of, have a very distinct style and flavor to them and Blumenthal’s write-up matches it, right down to the “Source Comments,” which smack very much of NSA reporting and its “house rules.”

But is this an NSA assessment? If so, it would have to be classified at least Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, a handling caveat that applies to most SIGINT, and quite possibly Top Secret/SCI, the highest normal classification we have. In that case, it was about as far from Unclassified as it’s possible for an email to be.

No surprise, NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now.

There are many questions here. How did Sid Blumenthal, who had no position in the U.S. Government in 2011, and hasn’t since Bill Clinton left the White House fifteen years ago, possibly get his hands on such highly classified NSA reporting? Why did he place it an open, non-secure email to Hillary, who after all had plenty of legitimate access, as Secretary of State, to intelligence assessments from all our spy agencies? Moreover, how did the State Department think this was Unclassified and why did it release it to the public?

It’s possible this Blumenthal report did not come from NSA, but perhaps from another, non-American intelligence agency – but whose? If Sid was really able to get top-level intelligence like this for Hillary, using just his shoestring operation, and get it into her hands a day later, with precise information about the high-level conspiracy that was just discussed over in Sudan, the Intelligence Community needs to get him on our payroll stat. He’s a pro at the spy business.

And remember, these are the emails that Hillary's staff chose to send to DoS... these aren't the ones that were deleted.

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.

What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

They should also not serve life long terms. Maybe a 7 year term, limit of 2 consecutive terms.

**whembly**

Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.

What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

They should also not serve life long terms. Maybe a 7 year term, limit of 2 consecutive terms.

I disagree with you there Gary... then, the Justices would be beholden politically.

This is one of those arguments why your vote for your party's nomination for Senate and President.

**Grey Templar**

I think that's one of their problems. They can freely spew their own personal agendas from their position till the day they die with no consequences.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:

TL;DR. Why exactly should anyone besides you care about this?

Grey Templar wrote:
Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

And how exactly do you plan to do this? Create a supremer court that exists for the sole purpose of hearing appeals from the supreme court?

They should also not serve life long terms. Maybe a 7 year term, limit of 2 consecutive terms.

You don't see any merit in the argument that they shouldn't have to worry about being "reelected" or have each new administration get to remake the entire court in line with its party ideology (complete with bringing congress to a standstill over every nomination)?

**Grey Templar**

Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.

I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.

This is one place where the writers of the Constitution messed up a little, they didn't think out the Judicial Branch as thoroughly as the other two.

**BobtheInquisitor**

I thought that the judges were not held accountable to the people to prevent tyranny of the majority situations.

**Grey Templar**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought that the judges were not held accountable to the people to prevent tyranny of the majority situations.

That was the original intent, unfortunately the opposite has been what happened.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:

TL;DR. Why exactly should anyone besides you care about this?

If you support the idea that elected officials operate under different rules/laws... then, you wouldn't care. However, if you believe elected officials ought to be held by the same standards as everyone else, then you'd have interest in this.

The Intelligence Community are taking this very seriously.

There's a very real chance that the FBI will recommend the DOJ to indict her and we just know that Obama/AG Lorretta *wont*. If you thought that the FBI/Intelligence Community leaked badly during Bush's years... prepare for the tsunami.

Deep Throat™ happened under similar circumstances.

**Gordon Shumway**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:

TL;DR. Why exactly should anyone besides you care about this?

One look at the byline should tell you nobody should.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
If you support the idea that elected officials operate under different rules/laws... then, you wouldn't care.

I don't support the idea, but I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that it's just the way things are, regardless of party. And all I see here is more attempts to turn a business-as-usual "scandal" into an opportunity to attack a political opponent.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.

What kind of checks? Who should they be held accountable to? And how do these goals avoid undermining the primary role of the supreme court, which is to determine if laws are acceptable or not?

Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.

Nine positions, replaced every seven years, means one ever 1.28 years. So 3.125 on average for a one-term president, 6.5 if they get a second term. You're essentially letting each party give themselves a majority on the supreme court every time they win an election. And that turns an independent judicial branch into an extension of the legislative and/or executive branches.

I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.

Not having them be accountable to the people is the whole point of an independent judicial branch! If judges are held accountable for every decision then it makes it a lot harder for them to make rulings based on precedent instead of popular opinion or party ideology. And we don't want an "independent" supreme court constantly worrying about how a decision is going to impact their reelection chances instead of interpreting the law as it is written.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.

This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Oh my... buckle y our seatbelts amigos, because:

TL;DR. Why exactly should anyone besides you care about this?

One look at the byline should tell you nobody should.

That author is an ex-spook.

Look, General Patreaus was convicted of breaking laws on handling classified information... even though the person he show it to had top clearance, she wasn't "cleared" to see it. THe FBI/IC are still miffed that he got off lightly, but at least he was charged.

Hillary and her minions? Duuude, if they skate, Patreaus should demand a redo.

Or at least, a major concerted leak campaign.

When Hillary says:
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Look at that email that I linked, and chew on this:
-nonclassified material doesn’t need to be transmitted by secure fax... if the material wasn’t classified, Sullivan would have had them faxed normally... right? Hillary needed the danged thing stat, laws be damned.
-Ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified... yes? On top of that, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified...only sensitive to national security.

The big *smoking gun* here is Hillary's ordering the headings stripped, and Sullivan’s apparent reluctance to work around the secure fax system, makes it all but certain that the material was classified at some level... and Hillary obviously knew it, hence that order.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Stuff

TL;DR. If you grant the assumption that high-level officials getting away with scandals is just business as usual (which is a pretty indisputable fact) why should anyone care about this? Was there evidence of malicious intent (leaking material to hurt a political opponent or provide an advantage to a business ally, for example) rather than just sloppy security procedures? Were there any serious consequences to the mishandling of information, or was this a non-event that is only mentioned because it's a useful campaign tool?

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.

Nine positions, replaced every seven years, means one ever 1.28 years. So 3.125 on average for a one-term president, 6.5 if they get a second term. You're essentially letting each party give themselves a majority on the supreme court every time they win an election. And that turns an independent judicial branch into an extension of the legislative and/or executive branches.

I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.

Not having them be accountable to the people is the whole point of an independent judicial branch! If judges are held accountable for every decision then it makes it a lot harder for them to make rulings based on precedent instead of popular opinion or party ideology. And we don't want an "independent" supreme court constantly worrying about how a decision is going to impact their reelection chances instead of interpreting the law as it is written.

We could solve that by making Justices only be allowed to serve one term. No reelection to worry about then.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.

This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.

Thats the entire point of checks and balances, so each branch is beholden to the others. Currently, the Justices are under no checks from the other branches once they're in power.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Stuff

TL;DR.

Then why are you responding to me if you didn't read it. That tells me your mind is made up because look "whembly posted something, something on Hillary", here lemme give some whacks along the way...

If you grant the assumption that high-level officials getting away with scandals is just business as usual (which is a pretty indisputable fact)

I don't grant that.

why should anyone care about this?

I want a politician, not a crime lord.

Was there evidence of malicious intent (leaking material to hurt a political opponent or provide an advantage to a business ally, for example) rather than just sloppy security procedures? Were there any serious consequences to the mishandling of information, or was this a non-event that is only mentioned because it's a useful campaign tool?

Maliciousness, sloppiness, serious consequences... all have no bearings on whether or not Clinton and her staff broke any laws with respect to handling classified information.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Then why are you responding to me if you didn't read it.

I read enough to see that it's more of your habit of posting long elaborate explanations of every tiny detail of the email "scandal" without ever bothering to explain why anyone should care about those details. Perhaps you think that if you pile up enough details people will be too busy reading them to see that the whole thing is meaningless?

I want a politician, not a crime lord.

Too bad, because that's what you get from both parties.

Maliciousness, sloppiness, serious consequences... all have no bearings on whether or not Clinton and her staff broke any laws with respect to handling classified information.

And, again, why should we care about whether the law was broken if there was no malicious intent or serious consequences? Are you also going to post hourly updates on the shocking revelation that Hillary was caught going 5mph over the speed limit?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Peregrine wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.

This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.

Perhaps you'd have to have something in place where other justices would have to out an "offender" or.... and I think it'd be abused in today's climate, you could have something where in the event of a perceived/actual conflict of interest (SCOTUS Justices pasts are fairly public knowledge once they're in office, as are their spouses businesses, etc), there could be a tribunal or committee who had a set and very limited time to judge whether there was indeed a conflict of interest. Obviously, I don't think it could be a congressional committee, because you'd be guaranteed to see both sides of the aisle raising a stink on ANY ruling that didn't go their way. But I would think that in any sort of situation where this kind of committee or whatever, the key factor has to be the time table. There should be a set in stone, no extensions, no BS rule, like 6 months to make the determination, and then that "committee" is disbanded, never to use that same group of people again (perhaps it'd have to work like a Jury Duty summons?)

I think that, for it to work, the "best" that could happen is that in the event that a Justice had conflict of interest, but didn't recuse themselves in a case, said case would be reopened, and the Justice removed from ALL proceedings for it.

**whembly**

Peregrine... breaking the law with respect to classified information is not as trivial as speeding 5mph over the limit. Where if it's anyone else, Peregrine, that person would be in prison in short time.

But, since Clinton is running for President, she deserves some leeway?

**NinthMusketeer**

High level politicians get off of crimes easy if not entirely. The only group that has it easier is the wealthy ones, who can pretty much do anything they like. Such as crashing a nation's economy.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
But, since Clinton is running for President, she deserves some leeway?

Deserves has nothing to do with it, it's simply acknowledgement of the situation. If she was a republican the lack of consequences would be exactly the same. Whether or not it's right is irrelevant, there's no option to have high-level officials held to the same standards as everyone else because neither party wants it to work that way. The only reason anyone is acting like this "scandal" is more than business as usual for both parties is that it's a useful opportunity to attack an enemy candidate.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:

We could solve that by making Justices only be allowed to serve one term. No reelection to worry about then.

Which would leave them unaccountable, and lead to more frequent Court packing. The system, as it exists, is fine. Republicans are only upset about it right now because they lost on a couple of their key issues. I find this hilarious because the last person who seriously tried to screw with the Court was FDR, someone I doubt many current GOP supporters are especially fond of.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:

Well for one, something to prevent them from inventing rights out of thin air.

That's a cute way of saying "people you don't like getting the same rights as you."

**Breotan**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
High level politicians get off of crimes easy if not entirely.

Sad but true.

**BrotherGecko**

You could make a requirement that supreme justices must either renounce or show no party affiliation or specific political ideology. So if they hang out with only politicians from one party that might disqualify them. Or if they spend all their time talking at conservative/liberal colleges, media, events, etc, that should disqualify them. Basically they should be able to objectively consider law without their political ideology or trying to help their party politically.

They should probably be required to have a PH.D in law. Unless they already are of course. I see a higher level of education with their experience should help them be more objective.

Another approach is not to fiddle with the supreme court but to make laws against those that try to. So make a severe pushiment to lobbyists that try to influence judges. An automatic loss of position if a politican tries to influence them. A loss of the judge's position if they allow themselves to be influenced rather than reporting the incident.

Another approach is to also increase their face in public. So people are more aware of them and what they do and say. As of right now because judges are politically and ideologically motivated, people only hear positive things about the ones they are told are good and only learn negative things about the ones they are told are bad. This is all to further party rhetoric and cement ideology.

**LordofHats**

dogma wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

We could solve that by making Justices only be allowed to serve one term. No reelection to worry about then.

Which would leave them unaccountable, and lead to more frequent Court packing. The system, as it exists, is fine. Republicans are only upset about it right now because they lost on a couple of their key issues. I find this hilarious because the last person who seriously tried to screw with the Court was FDR, someone I doubt many current GOP supporters are especially fond of.

This. Seriously Republicans. We get it. You hate Roe and want DOMA back.

**Prestor Jon**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Well it wouldn't be the entire court up for a new position every 7 years. There would be alternation. And it wouldn't have to be 7 years. Could be another number.

Nine positions, replaced every seven years, means one ever 1.28 years. So 3.125 on average for a one-term president, 6.5 if they get a second term. You're essentially letting each party give themselves a majority on the supreme court every time they win an election. And that turns an independent judicial branch into an extension of the legislative and/or executive branches.

I think Judges need to be accountable to the people. Unlike every other branch, they're independent and unsupervised once they are in office. Which can be a very very long time. Appointing a new judge shouldn't be so far reaching and impactful.

Not having them be accountable to the people is the whole point of an independent judicial branch! If judges are held accountable for every decision then it makes it a lot harder for them to make rulings based on precedent instead of popular opinion or party ideology. And we don't want an "independent" supreme court constantly worrying about how a decision is going to impact their reelection chances instead of interpreting the law as it is written.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, while I personally think that something in regards to the SC should change, the one thing that I personally think would go a long way to actually creating that change, is actually a recent rumbling/rumored bill: Basically, the SCOTUS judges need to be held to some form of ethical standard, as lower court judges are. By this I mean that if they are in someway personally vested in an issue (perhaps their spouse works for a major lobby group and would stand to greatly profit/ receive harm), they should be recused of their duties.

This is nice in theory, but who do you hold the highest court accountable to if there's a dispute over whether a conflict of interest exists? There's no higher court to appeal to, and you really don't want to give another branch of government the ability to make that call.

SCOTUS judges including current justices have recused themselves from cases where there has been a conflict of interest or the appearance of a potential conflict. It already happens. Requiring that the justices be appointed and vetted by Congress is the means by which the people are assured that the justices are ethical people. If politicians could control judges it would make the courts more political not less.

**LordofHats**

BrotherGecko wrote:
You could make a requirement that supreme justices must either renounce or show no party affiliation or specific political ideology.

So judges aren't allowed to have political opinions?

People need to get over this myth that there are two kinds of judges. There's only one kind of judge; one with a legal opinion. That's it. Some have progressive ideas about how the law should be applied and interpreted. Some have more strict ideas. Some prefer to see the law as something that must adapt and change to remain relevant. Others agree but don't think the court should be keeping it relevant via judicial review. They're all political judges. This is why SCOTUS and Appeals Courts are not 1 person bodies but a committee where majority rules. So we can stack it with all the different kinds of judges and let them work that crap out. This is why they write their opinions down, even if they were the minority, and judges in future cases can read them and decide the minority was right and the majority was wrong. Because law isn't clear cut or simple.

They should probably be required to have a PH.D in law.

I think they do already have this for the most part.

Another approach is not to fiddle with the supreme court but to make laws against those that try to.

I think this is a case of a problem that doesn't really exist. Judges are in place for life unless they get appointed to a higher court. There's really no way to lobby them (especially when they're already in the highest court).