Shattered American Idealism

In this chapter Joseph Smith returns to Nauvoo, Illinois, disappointed with his meeting with President Van Buren but hopeful that Elias Higbee can successfully get congressional support for their memorial for redress and reparations. Higbee updates Smith on a three-day hearing of the Mormons’ case before the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, that committee ultimately rules that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter and that the Mormons must seek redress from Missouri, the very state that ordered their extermination in 1838. This decision frustrates Smith. With his sense of American idealism shattered, he determines to pursue protection for his people through other legal and political channels.

The Bleep Heard round the World

No period during Watergate moved as quickly as mid-1974. In May, judicial action forced President Nixon to release damaging transcripts of private taped conversations. By July, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon must release the actual recordings, which was followed by the House Judiciary Committee passing the first three articles of impeachment with the charge of obstruction of justice. The content of the tapes proved the smoking gun to many because of conversations the president had within a week of the initial Watergate break-in, exposing how early he knew about it. Like Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who changed their vote as a result of the tapes, conservatives joined liberals within Protestantism to now condemn the president, though they continued to differ about their theological outlooks.

Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim

The Supreme Court conducted a selection of judges without the involvement of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee deemed the recruitment was violating the law since it was not involving them in the process. While the Supreme Court viewed that the implementation guidelines for the mutual regulation of the Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court was yet to be existed, while the need for fresh judges was deemed as urgent at that time. Based on that premise, the Supreme Court conducted the recruitment and appointment of judges, several supreme court judges and registrars were conducting a judicial review on the Law No. 49 of 2009, Law No. 50 of 2009, and Law No. 51 of 2009.The Constitutional Court granted their plea with Stipulation No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015.One of the points of considerations of the constitutional judges was the involvement of Judiciary Committee on the recruitment of judges was deemed to disrupt the independency of the Supreme Court. Actually, the involvement of the Judiciary Committee in the selection of judges will not intrude the independency of the judicial power or the judge itself. The independency of judges will be disrupted if the Judiciary Committee is intervening with the technical aspect of judicial power which includescross-examination, trial, and the verdict on a case.