Let me be the first to not call for impeachment

Apparently, we enjoy the services of a long-sitting federal judge who is incompetent. When the Washington Post editorial board writes, "Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful," something is amiss.

Other competent folks weigh in, too, at various places, collected by the P-Boys.

Of course it's unfair to rely on only one decision, particularly a high profile one, but it's also unlikely that the quality of the work is an outlier, unrepresentative of the body of work.

So there are a couple of things to note, the first about the Manhattan Media, and the second about the judiciary and legislatures.

The first is, when does a federal judge, JonBenet-like, get his or her picture plastered all over the front pages, and her name in the stories, and when does the story limit itself to reporting, not the person, but the omniciscient, impersonal "judge." That is, when is the actor merely "the court," and when is the actor a personalized hero? Perhaps it is only a function of the newsworthiness of the case, but don't be surprised if ideology is an independent variable in the function, too.

Second, let's assume that the judge is indeed the wack-job she appears to be, holding herself out as the sole surviving protector of the Constitutiona, children, etc., while righteously criticizing others for proclaiming themselves the sole protector of the Constitution, children, etc. There is an easy and, really, sole cure for this: impeachment.

Don't panic. This isn't an argument that Diggs Taylor should be impeached. If impeachment were an active governing mechanism, that is, one used ordinarily and routinely, to maintain quality, instead of only extraordinarily to cover up embarrassment, and I were a legislator on a standing impeachment committee, I would not accept an impeachment resolution against her based on this decision. I would vote against it, if this were the sole grounds. Any judge can have a bad day or a bad decision, and ought not be removed because of it.

But if I am not arguing for impeachment of this judge on this decision, I am arguing against the views of legislatures and the judiciary generally. It's one thing to maintain judicial independence; it's another to enable judicial incompetence and supremacy. Judges, and feckless legislatures, would rather have incompetents among them than allow themselves to be reviewed on the merits. They are like any union, or any profession, business, or customer.