Federal Judge Should Be Impeached for Gross Incompetence

Impeach This Judge!

In Florida, the State had enacted a law requiring those on public assistance to subject themselves to drug screenings.  Federal Judge Mary Scriven has temporarily suspended enforcement of the law on the basis that it may violate the protections of the 4th Amendment from unreasonable searches and seizures.  I will tell you that my opinion is that this judge should be impeached, removed from the bench, and have any license she has ever held to practice law revoked on the basis of extreme incompetence.  She said the State of Florida failed to explain how these drug screenings should be exempt from the protections of the 4th Amendment.  I’ve got news for Judge Scribble:  A four-year-old with an advanced degree in coloring books can figure this one out.  I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on television, but I know stupidity when I see it.  Judge Mary, let me help you out a bit, since you seem confused about the role of government and under what circumstances a person waives certain protections:

There is no right to public assistance.  That being the case, when you show up at government’s door begging for “temporary” help, file an application for assistance, and beg the people of the state in question for food, clothing, housing, lodging, or any of the many other things we provide out of the largess of leftists’ hearts, and our wallets, there IS NO EXPECTATION  of privacy when applying for PUBLIC support.  The applicant doesn’t have any obligation to be drug-tested.  We have no obligation to provide them assistance.  They can walk away, both without the drug-testing and the assistance.  It’s very simple, Judge Screech, when you live on my dime, you live by my rules.  I can require a prospective employee pass a drug screening, or a polygraph, and similar, and that’s because they’re coming to me for something.  They want something from me, and I can place conditions upon it.  You want the job?  Pee in the cup?  You want the Food assistance?  Pee in the cup.  It’s the same principle.  That’s it. End of the hunt.  It’s no more complicated than this, and all of your malingering about with the law is absurd.

Honestly, this is why Presidents matter.  Do you know who appointed this genius?  Clinton? No. Obama? No, nope, no way.  This ignoramus in a black robe was appointed by George W. Bush in 2008, to fill the seat vacated by Patricia Fawset.  As you can already guess, it was the ACLU on the plaintiff’s side of the case.  This should have been a summary dismissal, but as usual, what we have here is another useless jurist who should be tossed off of the bench.  She won’t be, of course.  We’ll be stuck with her until she dies or moves up. This ruling may in fact be her submission of a sort of judicial resume, if you know what I mean.

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

26 Responses to Federal Judge Should Be Impeached for Gross Incompetence

  1. gggtexas says:

    Mark – Excellent article (once again)!1 Thanks for all your research and great articles!

    Have you heard about the Veterans March in D.C., Nov. 11? "National Call for United Action" http://www.standupamericaus.org/politics-washingt

    From the site: "•We call for all Americans who truly do support our troops to march on D.C. with our veterans. We call upon ALL independent truckers, independent contractors, all non-union workers, all independent business owners, agents and investors, all who support free-market capitalism and the right to work, earn and own, to march together with our veterans and former service members on November 11, 2011 – Veterans Day!

    "All gave some; some gave all" We must support our Veterans!!!

    • Fred Johnson says:

      I am a 77 year old American and veteran of the Korean Conflict. I
      would gladly be in Washington to be a part of this but health conditions prevent that. I love my country and want to be a part of
      the effort to restore it to sanity. If there is an election in 2012 I will cast
      my vote for anyone opposing the current administration. We are AMERICANS. NOT COMMIES, LIBERALS, SOCIALISTS, AND WANT TO LIVE FREE 0F THESE IDIOTS. THIS CURRENT PRESIDENT IS A DISCRACE ALONG WITH HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION!! GOD BLESS YOU AND THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE IN WASHINGTON ON 11/11/2011. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

  2. rick geiger says:

    What you miss in your comments is that there are millions of people and companies that get government benefits and we are not asking all people getting government benefits to get a drug test. And yes the 4th Amendment is a substantive issue here…liberties and rights protected by the Constitution are not something to be set aside in a cavalier manner, they are the soul of our politics

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Rick, I don't think any 4th Amendment issue genuinely exists in this case. I'm not being cavalier; I reject the premise out of hand. If you come to me asking for something you want, but to which you have no right, I can place whatever conditions upon it that I like. Period. There is no right to assistance, just as there is no right to a job in my shop. I'm not missing anything in this Rick. The State of Florida applied this rule to everybody seeking assistance in their state assistance program. It's not like they were singling people out based on where they live, what they look like, or anything else. Your use of the word "benefit" is intentionally mis-leading, because "benefit" suggests it had been "earned." I realize the word "benefit" is widely used in some quarters, but I think we need to stop with the nonsense.

      • rick geiger says:

        You can imply whatever connotation to the word benefit you want, but it is not misleading, it is the term commonly used for getting anything from the government. And yes, there is a right to not be searched and if you say that a drug test is not a search, that is silly. When the government gives a benefit, or handout as you call it, to someone with a government loan, or redistricting a piece of real property for economic benefit, or how about medicare or social security, the only right a person has to them is via a statute, same as medicaid or public assistance. Should everyone getting medicare and social security get drug tested? It seems to me what you want to do is create a separate class of citizens, the poor, so that they do not have the same Constitutional protection as a medicare or social security or zoning law, or state loan beneficiaries. Now where would that power come from? It is not in the US Constitution and since this is 4th Amendment issue, it is valid. And by the way, you have not right to a drivers license either, and there is likely a much better case empirically to drug test drivers than welfare recipients..should all drivers be drug tested, and if not why not? Constitutional rights are not, today, granted to or protected from invasion only those with money, they go to US Citizens.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Simple question Rick, boiling down all of this: Is the state able to place conditions upon the receipt of these "benefits" or whatever you wish to call them? Yes or no? I can be denied a driver's license for a range of conditional considerations, can't I? Sorry, but you're out of ammo here.

  3. rick geiger says:

    Sure, States can place condition on benefits, but, States cannot have policies that violate the US Constitution. Really, that is not me saying that, that is our national policy since before 1789 and since John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I think US Constitutional jurisprudence is pretty good ammo, if I must say so myself

    • MarkAmerica says:

      They don't violate the US Constitution, Rick. Nowhere can you find in the constitution a right to "benefits." It doesn't exist. What's next? Are you going to throw Marbury v. Madison at me? Forget it. It's not going to work out here.

      • rick geiger says:

        Honestly, I'm not so sure why this is so complicated. No one says you have a right to benefits, that is not the issue, I am not sure why you raise that. As citizens we have the rights protected by the Constitution (we also have natural rights), the issue in this case is the 4th Amendment, which you basically just roll past as if it does not exist. You use the Obama method of raising a false issue and then knocking it down…it may work for Obama with some people but not with many others, including me. And the idea that a federal judge should be impeached for having an opinion on the 4th Amendment is really from left field. First of all she has not made a decision on it, all she is saying that that the Constitution may be implicated where 4th Amendment rights are obvious. Raising false issues does not assist your case. If you want to argue that drug testing is not a 4th Amendment issue, then fine, if you read the cases you will see that in almost all the cases, is it identified as a legitimate 4th Amendment issue, now maybe all those judges are wrong, they have been wrong before, but it is careless and it trivializes the Constitution to say that 4th Amendment issues are subsumed in state legislation, there are no courts (subsequent to the 14th Amendment) that have ever been ultimately successful in stating that the 4th Amendment does not apply to citizens in all states. You seem like a serious guy so I am surprised that you would attempt to trivialize the Bill of Rights. She may decide this is not a 4th Amendment violation but merely examining the issue is not something we should support impeachment over.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Raising false issues seems to be your specialty, Rick.

          Again, does the state have the ability to place qualifications on the receipt of what you call "benefits"? This is a "yes or no" sort of question. Which? Yes? No?

          The answer is clearly YES!

          Once that's resolved, the next question is: What sort of qualifications?

          Answer: Any type it deems to be in the public interest.

          I think the state could just as easily say the following: "Submit a certified letter from a qualified testing laboratory stating that you have passed a screening." The state could be said to be doing the recipients a favor in this case, by waiving the cost of the testing in advance of the results. The point is, this is NOT A FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUE, Rick.

  4. Kells Bells says:

    I'm a Floridian and we had quite a contentious debate about this on a paper's website. You have stated, quite nicely, what I tried to say to them: How is it Constitutional for you to receive my money when I work two jobs? Now they're trying to throw out all this crap about it being so expensive, and Scott is getting kickbacks, blah, blah, blah! The truth hurts. And there you have it……..and they don"t.

  5. Sunny says:

    The flaw in your slaw is this.I have the right and responsibility to go elsewhere for employment , if I don't agree with your terms.Key is I've the freedom to go to other employers.People on welfare don't.They, nor you or I ,created this centralized method of dispersal.I understand the frustration with welfare.The way to dismantle it ,is through your states congress. Make it very very hard to get on.Make is so dispalatable recipents leave quickly.Better yet do away with it entirely.Please though stop bashing the citizens for the governments mistakes.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Wrong Sunny. You can go elsewhere. You can turn to charity. You can turn to family. You can turn to anybody on the planet. We, who provide the "benefit" (in deference to Rick) have the right to set conditions on their distribution. Period.

      You say "make it very hard to get on." What do you think this law in Florida is intended to do? I think you may be confused,. because this was a law enacted by Florida's legislature. Does this not make it unpalatable?

      "…do away with it entirely"???

      I wish.

  6. rick geiger says:

    Usually I just let these things go but when you say that a state has the right to place a restriction in any way it deems in the public interest I just can't. If that was the case, then states could pass a law that says if you are a Christian, you cannot get public assistance, or if you own a gun, you cannot get public assistance,or if you openly stated that you hate the governor you cannot get public assistance, or if yesterday you protested a new law in the public square, then you have no right to public assistance…should I go on? All of those Constitutional protections area also part of the Constitution just like the right against unreasonable search and seizure. So can states qualify benefits? sure, they do it all time, but can they make one of the qualifications that you give up a US Constitutional right, NO, Unless you want to throw out the US Constitution. Give it up man, this is not a matter of pride, it is a matter of supporting a Constitutional Republic or not.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Nice attempt. You shift this from the realm of reality right off into your la-la-land. Worst of all, you make a phony appeal to patriotism in that last line or two. The states can make any reasonable qualification they think serves the public interest. I've got another article about all of this coming later. Check back, and check your nonsense at the door. You'll be thoroughly debunked at that time. Thanks!

    • Kells Bells says:

      You miss the point. It is unconstitutional to take from one and give to another. I really get tickled by people that use the Robin Hood theory. They need a lesson in history.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Nice attempt. You shift this from the realm of reality right off into your la-la-land. Worst of all, you make a phony appeal to patriotism in that last line or two. The states can make any reasonable qualification they think serves the public interest. I’ve got another article about all of this coming later. Check back, and check your nonsense at the door. You’ll be thoroughly debunked at that time. Thanks!

      • Kells Bells says:

        Unfortunately, noboby in FL follows the different rulling of judges; so their ballot at election time is pretty much ignored. :(

      • Liberta M. says:

        MarkAmerica, may I assist?

        Mr. Geiger:

        The Fourth Amendment, like most of the amendments, is addressed to government actors (originally federal and now state), and mandates that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and further that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. (Because we are not discussing criminal sanctions, I will not take the time to enlighten you on the subject of warrants.)

        Any constitutional right can be waived, as is done through explicit consent, such as when a probationer or parolee waives his right in exchange for serving no jail time or obtaining an early release. This, Mr. Geiger, is a “condition.” Through licensing programs, businesses are often required to submit to inspections prior to operating a business or marketing a product pursuant to the “reasonable” standard. This, too, is a “condition.” Although some investigative entries into a commercial establishment not open to the public might require a warrant, a closely regulated industry, such as auto dismantlers and pawn shops, enjoy less of a privacy interest, and warrantless inspections can be deemed reasonable. (There is a test for reasonableness with which I will not bore you here.)

        Many other government “benefits” come with “conditions” that would otherwise impinge on constitutional rights, such as farm subsidies that mandate where and what crops a farmer may grow on his own land. By an act of congress, public housing authorities have the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant if a household member or guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew. Of course, the government cannot place restrictions that are discriminatory with regard to race, religion or gender. Drug users are not a protected class.

        As for drug testing, individuals often consent in exchange for a benefit or privilege, as is the case for some government employees or the operator of a motor vehicle who agrees to a breathalyzer or blood test in exchange for a driver’s license. But some need not consent at all. School children can be drug tested, and unlike a welfare recipient, children are compelled by the government to attend school – welfare recipients are not compelled by the government to take its money. In any event, the government has an even more compelling reason for not subsidizing drug use, in light of its collateral effects on society, as it does in preventing and deterring drug use among school children.

        Welfare is not a right; it is a statutory entitlement. A recipient might be entitled to due process in order to revoke it, but a brief hearing and a positive drug test should meet that standard.

        So you see, Mr. Geiger, although the 4th Amend. is implicated by a drug test, it does not necessarily follow that the amendment has been violated when demanded as a condition for obtaining funds from the People’s purse.
        Liberta´

    • C Bartlett says:

      One more point for Mr. Geiger: Your comparison of receiving "benefits" like welfare & food stamps (I think "entitlements" is a much better word) to receiving social security and medicare has one major fallacy. We taxpayers have paid into those two systems all of our working lives and are due the payments back (theoretically speaking at least – if the government hadn't been robbing the funds all these years it would actually still be there). The people receiving handouts like food stamps, medicaid & welfare subsidies did not contribute to funds designated for those "benefits" – they are merely receiving them because we, the taxpayer, "allow" them to apply for and qualify for them. I agree with the fact that they have to prove that they don't have sufficient income or have a certain number of dependents or that they have an illness or disability to get the "benefits". Why shouldn't drug testing be included in that list too? I cannot fathom the reason an intelligent judge would make this ruling. What an idiot.

  7. Di says:

    I think that you are a cheeky article. DONT bring Social Security into your conversation. My husband worked hard all of his life for his family to have some support when he died. How dare you violate that right to support yourself. I have seen more beggers on the streets of America than I care to mention. Ofcourse there are those who would abuse the system. There are mllions of them, most not claiming any kind of benefit.
    Try finding a way to get them to take tests to prove their right to be in this country as they tear it apart with their greed, let alone any thing else. Note I am not talking about immigrants I am talking about Business's who steal from ordinary people with their scams. If you want to fight for your country trying looking at the scams and finanace charges they apply to all kinds of cards. Millions of dollars going into their pockets one way and another. Take your anger there and do some good.- for those of us who do have to live on a fixed amount and are robbed from month to month. There are more of us to help.