More and more, it seems judges and DAs have become political tools, particularly for the left, used to punish adversaries and intimidate dissidents. Take this recent incident in West Virginia: a judge found herself on the verge of impeachment and opted for retirement instead.
Reports indicate she didn't just infringe upon one constitutional amendment — but three, contributing to yet another bewildering legal debacle in the U.S.
From WND:
A now-"retired" judge in West Virginia is being accused of violating the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments all at once when she personally traveled to the home of a man involved in a divorce dispute, and then supervised the confiscation of various items from his home.
And the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said since her actions did not fall within any definition of judicial proceedings, she is liable for damages.
The Institute for Justice explains a case by Matthew Gibson now will proceed against former judge Louise Goldston.
She already has been censured, fined and roundly condemned by the West Virginia high court for violating the state’s code of judicial conduct. She was being impeached when she took retirement.
The IJ reported, "She ended up retiring from her position amid a legislative push to impeach her for violating the rights of West Virginians. The resolution to impeach Goldston specifically mentioned the judge leading a warrantless search of Matthew’s home. Despite her retirement, Matthew and IJ continued moving forward with their lawsuit against Goldston wanting to ensure that this egregious violation wouldn’t happen again, and that the doctrine of judicial immunity would not expand. "
The 4th Circuit said Goldston's actions were not protected by judicial immunity, as she had demanded.
"Goldston stepped outside of her judicial role when she personally participated in the search of Gibson's home. The search of someone's home and the seizure of its contents are executive acts, not judicial ones. We thus hold that her activities are not eligible for the protections of judicial immunity."
The IJ reported, "Judges are not entitled to do whatever they want, and then demand special treatment just because they happen to wear a robe at work. They cannot, for instance, act like police and search homes; if they do, they can’t claim judicial immunity."
It was during a divorce hearing in Raleigh County, West Virginia, and Goldston, hearing complaints from Matthew's former wife that he hadn't delivered some items she wanted, simply ordered those in the court to go with her to Gibson's home.
There, she instructed the former wife to take what she wanted.
She even threatened Gibson with arrest for objecting to her police actions.
It's really startling to witness behavior from a judge that seems less about impartial justice and more about personal vendetta. Such conduct has no place in the American judicial system. Unfortunately, this trend isn't limited by political affiliation—it crosses party lines, involving both liberal activists and so-called RINO judges. This is a critical bipartisan issue that needs addressing urgently to safeguard the integrity of our courts.
