Is it fairly reasonable to compare today,s judges to Kings and Queens?, in as having an unreasonable amount of power?

I think that newer judges have changed from the older and I think wiser judges. First time offenders are convicted the same as the multiple offender and sent off to prison. Older Judges used to be more lenient,
especially when the family gets involved. Judges today are like politicians, they have to be tough on crime and it ruins many young peoples life. Judges don't judge anymore, they just follow a script.
JMHO

Is it fairly reasonable to compare today,s judges to Kings and Queens?, in as having an unreasonable amount of power?


Do you mean like The Supreme Court making law? Like Gay Marriage, when their job is to interpret & uphold, not create ?

Or the Supreme Court, refusing to hear 2nd amendment cases.? Allowing states to be inviolation & enforce unconstitutional laws/ gun restrictions ?

Again I ask...
What do you think OP ?

I would say, in the general way you've asked, the answer is a very firm NO.

Despite claims to the contrary, here and elsewhere, that judges have CREATED laws where none were before, this does not happen. It is particularly true here in the US, that even the Supreme Court's decisions, can be challenged and made moot by other branches of government.

The traditional idea that most people have about kings and queens (which was only rarely actually true, by the way), is that kings aren't subject to the established laws of the land. There are no judges for whom that is true.

Now retired Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, said as she was on her way out, that accusations of "activist judges" creating law, were a threat to the judicial system. In particular, she pointed out that the label "Activist judge" was being applied whenever a case was decided differently than the accuser wanted it to be, and had nothing at all to do with any factual support for the claimed "activism."

Every Supreme Court decision cites the specific part of the Constitution involved, and explains how the Justices decided what the decision should be.

It is a lie to claim they ever just make things up.

there is similarity in that some do have an unreasonable amount of power,,,those that abuse it

What power do they have? That instilled by the ignorant masses? Personally I prefer to use 42 USC 1983.

What a naive view of the world, also totally false. Never has there been a larger group of liars in this world than lawyers even the more when appointed a judge and seemingly to be topped by the quoted "Sandra Day O'Connor", Supreme Liar surpassed only by Odumbo and Hitlerly.

The entire government has been ever increasingly usurped by these so call "representative" liars. And this isn't a red/blue thing either as so gallantly displayed by the Dumbocraps having their best years yet with the Repugnantcons controlling both houses.

Not to mention the absolute usurpation of the justice system to such a degree that Thomas and Scalia have even declared foul in dissenting opinions.

But this whole mess has been here since the beginning, when those that were to propose a way to amend the Articles of Confederation instead decided to start a new government.

And back then you had the Federalist (a lie), 3 individuals, Jay, Madison and Hamilton against more than 80 that were improperly deemed Anti-Federalist where the presstitutes of the day refused to print the Anti-Federalist papers but all carried the view of those three Federalist, one of which lost his life in a dual and another that was admonished by Marshall of the Supreme Court for an unconstitutional act.

Your affection for making up words and names, and your inability to provide proof of your statements, makes it clear that your commentary is nothing more than self-indulgent fantasy.

ohhhh, that damn pot kettle thingy again...

Proof of the statements are self evident to any that has common sense and are aware of the environment around them. If one has to actually stop and demonstrate that which is self evident, it would be but a futile effort as it would little be understood.