Someone wrote a book entitled “What’s Wrong With Kansas?” Apparently, the sequel will have to be entitled “What’s Wrong with South Dakota?” Or maybe “WTF, SD?” Banning abortions and, now, setting up kangaroo courts to judge judges and keep them in line with the will of the mob.

There’s no way J.A.I.L. is constitutional. If this and the abortion ban are struck down in the same Supreme Court session, will that constitute some record for state incompetence? “Come to South Dakota — we don’t know what the hell we’re doing!” mjh

Text of the South Dakota J.A.I.L. Amendment

We, the People of South Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has the potential of being greatly abused; that when judges do abuse their power, the People are obliged – it is their duty – to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to insure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding these provisions as §28 to Article VI, which shall be known as “The J.A.I.L. Amendment.” [Judicial Accountability Initiated Law]

Rushmore to Judgment – South Dakota ups the ante in the national war over judges. By Bert Brandenburg

The newest front in the war on the courts is being fought in South Dakota, where, in the shadow of Mt. Rushmore, a group called “J.A.I.L. 4 Judges” is promoting one of the most radical threats to justice this side of the Spanish Inquisition. It’s extreme and it’s incoherent, but it’s got more than 40,000 petition signatures—and it will go to the state’s voters as a constitutional amendment in November. A national network of supporters is waiting in the wings, threatening to export the revolution to other states if they do well this fall.

The group’s proposed measure would wipe out a basic doctrine called judicial immunity that dates back to the 13th century, protecting judges from personal liability for doing their job ruling on the cases before them. A special grand jury—essentially a fourth branch of government—would be created to indict judges for a string of bizarre offenses that include “deliberate disregard of material facts,” “judicial acts without jurisdiction,” and “blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case,” along with judicial failure to impanel a jury for infractions as minor as a dog-license violation. After three such “convictions,” the judge would be fired and docked half of his or her retirement benefits for good measure. …

This movement is the brainchild of a Californian named Ronald Branson with a history of suing state and federal officials for alleged conspiracies (including his own trials for burglary and a traffic offense). …

In other words, J.A.I.L. 4 Judges seeks to capitalize on the incessant talk-radio hate-in against the courts, where America’s 11,000 judges are caricatured as godless, flag-burning, property-seizing, gay-marriage missionaries. J.A.I.L. is just the latest in a parade of groups twisting the notion of judicial accountability beyond recognition. …

Indeed, JAILers are brimming with confidence that they’ll win in South Dakota this fall, and around the country beyond. Writes Branson: “The People are slowly waking up to realize who the Enemy is—and it isn’t Bin Laden.”

Retired Supreme Court Justice hits attacks on courts and warns of dictatorship Nina Totenberg, NPR News

I, said [retired Justice] O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning.