Archive for the ‘Idiot Judges’ Category

It’s Not Over

Sunday, July 14th, 2013

Readers of this site are often treated to predictions of doom and gloom; reports of misdeeds and malfeasance; foreshadowing of despair and sorrow, but on this day, we ought to take a moment to quietly celebrate the fact that despite all the  treachery aligned against her, Justice still succeeds in America precisely because there are so many good and diligent people still among us.  George Zimmerman was acquitted Saturday night on all charges, and whatever we may individually think of the case and Mr. Zimmerman, for the jury to have arrived at a “not guilty” verdict speaks to the fact that despite all the wrenches thrown with malice into the gears of the ordinary legal process in this case, six average Americans were able to arrive at a verdict that went against every bias that might well have stymied Justice among folk of lesser character.  Threats of violence notwithstanding, outrageous statements by reporters and lawyers in media no more fruitful, these six jurors dared to decide the case on the basis of its merits.  They upheld the rule of law in the face of a myriad of reasons that might have stopped them, save only one: They took their duty as jurors seriously, and decided the case with the full measure of diligence it deserved.  This ought to tell us at least one thing about America that in our constant depression over the country’s state that we must not forget: It isn’t over yet.

Justice still prevails in America, and that ought to be reason enough to celebrate.  I do not intend here to gloat about the particular outcome, but instead hope to explain to you why this should give heart to every American of good will.  Even with the grim spectacle of Florida Attorney Angela Cory’s bizarre and hateful attempt to retry the case in the press, having lost it only moments before, justice did prevail.  I know this because had there been even a sliver of evidence to support the prosecutors’ case against George Zimmerman, he would have been found guilty because the pressure being placed on this jury by the entire media spectacle must have been obnoxious.  For them to return a “not guilty” can only mean that despite all the ploys of the prosecution, and the tampering of the judge, even with all the media attention on the courtroom, these six women sat down to deliberate the case and came out with a verdict that all the pressure in the world made into the most difficult of them, except that in the end, they could not adhere to anything but the law and the evidence.  It is a marvel in this age of politicizing everything. Whatever they may have felt about George Zimmerman at the conclusion of this show trial, they managed to see through it to justice.

Based on the testimony and evidence I had seen replayed or recounted in reports, it was difficult to imagine how they would convict him under the “reasonable doubt” standard. In my view, the case put on by prosecutors with respect to the evidence and the testimony of witnesses was largely exculpatory, irrespective of all the emotion the prosecutors poured into the mix in a shameless attempt at misdirection.  The fact that this had been a political trial instigated by political hacks insistent upon pandering did not overwhelm the good sense of the jurors and their ability to reasonably apply the law to the case laid out before them.  In this country, with the vast leftwing conspiracy of goons all agitating in one direction, these six jurors sent an unimpeachable message by their verdict that must serve as a searing reproach to all those who sought to tamper with the process: Justice still works in America.

It will be tempting to dismiss this instance in which justice had prevailed as an aberration, but the fact is that in most cases, in most places, at most times around the country, justice prevails when the stakes are high.  There will always be those infamous cases that prove the contrary thesis, but even at this late date, and perhaps more importantly because of this nation’s creeping devolution, it is all the more heartening to see the law more faithfully observed and measured by six ordinary Floridians than by five of nine Supreme Court justices.  Consider this while insisting that we cannot save the country.  Do you believe it will be saved by some grand stroke?  If America is to be saved, it will have been because ordinary Americans in cases big and small took a stand on the side of justice. Not “racial justice.” Not “environmental justice.”  Not “social justice.” Instead, plain, old-fashioned, uncorrupted, scales-and-sword with blind-fold Justice will be the thing that can save our nation.  It had been six ordinary women who were willing to wear the blind-folds and weigh with the scruples of saints and the fine precision of  jewelers, willing only to raise their sword if their measuring had demanded it.

I recognize that on this morning, there exists some sizable proportion of the American populace who remain unsatisfied with this result, but I beg them to accept it as a first step back toward the ideals that had been our American dream even when we have not always achieved it.  I also offer a cautionary note, because what this verdict means and should be understood to describe is a country in which it is still quite normal for ordinary citizens to rise to the occasion and mete out justice as the situation demands.  For those who would take their dissatisfaction violently into the streets, they should know that there will be courtrooms in their futures too, and with any luck, juries that will be equally diligent when sitting in judgment.

There are those who ask me how I can possess any glimmer of hope for this country, but I contend that the evidence is all around us, even if it isn’t writ large on television screens.  It has ever been the diligence and forthright character of ordinary Americans pressed by circumstance into civic duty who have given me such hope as I still possess, and on Saturday in Florida, six of them did not disappoint. America is not over.

Miscarriage of Justice

Saturday, July 13th, 2013

Judicial Intemperance

In the case of the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman on Thursday, Judge Nelson stepped out of line.  The purpose for which a judge serves in any trial is to be sure that the evidence is presented, and that a fair trial is conducted that by its processes, procedures, and by the judge’s own conduct, does not prejudice the jury flagrantly either for or against the defendant.  Whether you believe that George Zimmerman had been merely defending himself, or instead that he had shot Trayvon Martin with other motives, he is entitled to a fair trial.  What occurred on Thursday in Nelson’s courtroom was a travesty, and everything about it stinks of corruption or malfeasance on the part of the judge.  There can be no excuse for the conduct of the judge, so that whatever you think of Zimmerman’s alleged guilt or presumed innocence, you ought not be satisfied with the conduct of this trial.  From the very start, the deck has been stacked against George Zimmerman, and to see our system of justice perverted in this manner is one more piece of evidence in the case that we are entering post-constitutional, post-American conditions.

To begin, there should have been no trial.  The trial is the result of a special(read: “political”) investigation conducted by a state government that was seeking a political solution arising from a purely legal problem: The original investigation by Sanford, FL police found no cause to prosecute George Zimmerman, finding there was insufficient evidence to support prosecuting him.  All bizarre conspiracies aside, what Sanford investigators concluded was that George Zimmerman had acted in self-defense when he discharged his weapon, resulting in the death of Trayvon Martin.  At that point, the usual suspects in the unending meme of racial discontent took the stage, including our aggrieved President, who proclaimed “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”  From the moment these words issued forth from Barack Obama’s mouth, the die had been cast, and there could be no fair process for George Zimmerman. For an alleged “constitutional scholar,” Mr. Obama exhibited the prudence one might expect from a drunken lout making off-hand declarations.

The prosecutors spent the course of their case contradicting themselves, putting on witnesses that damned their case against Zimmerman, and mostly making a spectacle of their own incompetence.  If one didn’t know better, one might conclude that the prosecution had given up making any serious case against Zimmerman, and was merely going through the motions as a matter of political obedience to those same authorities, including the governor and attorney general of the State of Florida who insisted on bringing this case despite the clear lack of evidence for prosecution, and in spite of exculpatory evidence and witnesses that would tend to confirm the defendant’s claim of self-defense.  This has been a show-trial in mockery of justice, and throughout the presentation of their case, the prosecution didn’t manage even to put on a good show.

On Thursday, the judge permitted the prosecution to seek a conviction on the lesser charger of manslaughter, a charge that could still carry up to thirty years behind bars for Mr. Zimmerman, despite the fact that throughout the course of the trial, they had been seeking a second-degree murder finding.  While not unprecedented, it shows the degree to which the court has been accommodating to the prosecution’s interests.  It also clearly demonstrated that the prosecution knew it would never get a guilty verdict on the legal standard of second-degree murder, but they are hoping the jurors are willing to play Solomon and cut this baby in two, by finding Zimmerman guilty of the lesser charge despite the fact that their case hadn’t even met that standard.

More, judge Nelson entered into an interrogatory with the defendant in an entirely improper way, using her power of the bench to silence defense attorneys in what can only be regarded as a gross violation of the defendant’s civil liberties.  Zimmerman had the right to remain silent, and he had the right to reserve the matter of whether he would testify until the conclusion of the case being put on by his defense team.  In ordering the attorneys to be silent, the judge effectively deprived Mr. Zimmerman of counsel.  There is no other way to describe this, and it is an unconscionable breach of her duty to remain impartial to either party.  On the one hand, she was sabotaging Zimmerman’s defense, and on the other, she was providing clear appellate cause if there should be a conviction, and she admitted that might be the case in her own remarks to the court, but this did not deter her actions.  Why?

Some suspect foul play, inasmuch as it is not beyond the conceivable bounds of the Obama administration.  By opening his mouth on the matter, Obama now has a huge personal stake in this.  His prestige as President is on the line, and while he is mocked overseas from Europe to the Middle East to Asia, and while our foreign adversaries continue to consider him as a less-than-serious threat who has no credibility, at home he remains something of a cultural icon among minorities and youth.  His credibility is on the line, and if George Zimmerman is acquitted, after all the tampering by he and Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice, in many quarters, they will lose face on the street.  This may explain why the DOJ helped facilitate anti-Zimmerman protests at the outset of this case. Yes, to add insult to injury, tax-payer dollars went to support the creation of the spectacle of a racially-motivated rent-a-mob at the beginning of this case.

Should Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter, I would not be surprised if on appeal, he may either get a retrial or have the conviction overturned.  Cynics might argue that this is the intention of the judge: Set Zimmerman up for conviction knowing that he will likely find relief in the appellate system.  In this way, the immediate threat of violence will be deferred so that when he finally finds relief from courts of appeal, people will have forgotten about him and the case, and the specter of riots averted.  If that’s the intention of any person connected with this case, they ought to be disbarred, removed from public offices in any capacity, and prosecuted for their misdeeds.  It is a heinous crime to rig the system of justice on the potentially false assumption that they will find justice at some later date.

Judge Nelson is a life-long Democrat, and a Jeb Bush appointee.  None should be surprised at this since we know Bush is no conservative.  If Zimmerman is convicted on the basis of this sabotage by the judge, Bush may face questions should he seek the nomination of the Republican Party about the quality and temperament of his judicial appointees, as well he should.

As all of this goes on, the same media that worked devilishly to rig public opinion by editing the 9-1-1 tapes is continuing to push the violence meme, replaying clips of the same old garbage, with perpetual vermin like Al Sharpton being looped repeatedly across the networks from the beginning of this case, when he added his voice to those comprising the lynch mob seeking Zimmerman’s blood.  It’s a sorry spectacle, but do not be dissuaded: If an injustice is carried out in this case, it will have been because our judicial system upon which we must all rely for a fair hearing in court has been bastardized and corrupted like so much else in our rapidly devolving culture.

As this goes to press, the jury is continuing their deliberations, and one can only hope that whatever their verdict, that these people will not be swayed by faulty process, misrepresentations, threats of violence, or any other factor except the law and the evidence.  If that is the case, justice will be done, and that’s all we can ask, but given the circus-like atmosphere of the court proceedings, it’s difficult to imagine the jury remaining completely untainted.  With this firmly in mind, like all the world, we must await a verdict, fervently hoping a further injustice will not have been done, but given the conduct of judge Debra Nelson, a grave miscarriage of justice has already occurred irrespective of what verdict may be handed-down by the jury.

Note: Some of the site update work has been delayed due entirely to my work schedule.  As outages are expected, I will let readers know.  Thank you for your patience.

Do Conservatives Wish to Repair the Supreme Court?

Sunday, July 1st, 2012

We Can Fix This, YES WE CAN!

One of the things I love about the United States Constitution is that it is a living document, but its life is breathed into it not by some magic power to change its meaning, or change the meaning of the words in its text, as leftists do, but by the rules laid down within it, we have the ability to amend it, or replace it altogether, through the amendment and convention processes, respectively.  These are quite difficult and potentially dangerous processes, but this is why progressives have used dishonest means to change the impact of the Constitution on law.  They figure that the best way to get what they want is to place justices on the court who will undo the meaning of the Constitution.  The recent Supreme Court decision has left strict constructionists in a bit of a quandary: Here we have a wayward element within the court, the Chief Justice, no less, and it seems we’re to be stuck with him, probably for a long, long time.  What most people don’t realize about the Court, however, is that its size and most of the rules determining its power are set by Congress, and that the Constitution gives Congress said power.  There is a way to fix the court, but it would require a Congress with guts.  Imagine that such a creature were to exist.  What could Congress do to repair the Court?

Most people don’t study the Constitution, never mind history, so they’re unaware that Congress has the power to set the number of justices on the Supreme Court.  There is nothing locking us into the number nine, and there is nothing sacred about it.  As a cost-saving measure, since we now have another mindless entitlement program for which to pay, Congress could reduce that number to seven.  The Congress could apply the LIFO(Last In-First Out) rule to determine who stays.  This would lop off Kagan and Sotomayor, they having most recently joined the court.  In a punitive mood?  Want further cost savings?  We could make that number three, and by applying the LIFO rule, this would leave us with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.  I would like to know which of you conservatives wouldn’t favor that?

In 1937, the New Deal was getting hammered in the Court.  President Roosevelt’s agenda was running into resistance much as Obama’s has encountered conservative resistance these days, but with a two differences:  He owned both houses of Congress, but the Supreme Court at the time was busily overturning vast portions of the New Deal.  FDR’s plan was to push his agenda through by increasing the number of justices on the court until he had a liberal ruling majority.  The Senate cried foul, and momentarily, and FDR’s plan was halted.  He naturally found another manner to accomplish his ends, and it was to sweeten the retirement pot for Supreme Court justices, inducing some of the older members to retire, and after the passage of the Supreme Court Retirement Act.  This ultimately led to the rapid retirements of several members, FDR made his appointments, and then the New Deal began to be upheld. (The Retirement Act permitted Supreme Court Justices to retire with 100% of their last salary.)

The Supreme Court was not always composed of nine members. For the record, and thanks to Wikipedia for having it condensed into this form:

Congress organized the Court that year with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It specified the Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction, created thirteen judicial districts, and fixed the number of justices at six (one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices).

Since the passage of the Judiciary Act, Congress has occasionally altered the size of the Supreme Court, historically in response to the country’s own expansion in size. Membership was decreased in 1801 to five, then increased to seven members in 1807, to nine in 1837, and to ten in 1863. It was then reduced to seven in 1866. In 1869, Congress set the Court’s size to nine members, where it has remained since.

As you can see, there were quite a number of modifications, but the salient point is that there is nothing sacred about the number nine(9).  It could just as easily be three(3), or even one(1).

This may seem a radical solution, but as you can see from the history, it’s only because we’ve become accustomed to there being nine justices.  If we reduced the number to three, it is true that we would lose Samuel Alito, but that could be repaired by a conservative president upon the retirement of one of the others.  My point to readers is that there is a solution available to us, but the question is: How badly do we want it, and can we live with the dangers?  Given the ruling of John Roberts, I am of a mind to pursue this.  I’d like to send him packing.  I’d like to send his leftist friends with him.

All we need to accomplish this is bullet-proof conservative majorities in both houses of Congress, but therein lies the problem.  If we are to have any chance to repair this, we must own both the House and the Senate.  This makes taking the Senate our most important priority in the Fall elections, but it also means that we must be sure to place conservatives in office.  Of course, one could argue(and some will) that if we capture both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, we would have no need of this ‘solution’ to our problem, but I must thoroughly disagree. Our Supreme Court is damaged, and in subsequent rulings, it will be worse if we don’t repair the court.  Can you imagine the lawsuits liberals will bring even if we do overturn Obama-care as a matter of statute?  What would this Supreme Court do with that?  With the mindless and idiotic ruling of John Roberts, inventing law out of whole cloth, I can imagine him finding some way to overturn a Repeal Act.  Statists don’t care about logical consistency, after all, or they wouldn’t be statists.

I realize my proposal will fall on deaf ears, and I know too that we have far too few staunch conservatives in either house of Congress to actually carry this out, but I’m merely telling you what could be done, legally, under our Constitution.  After all, the worst part of this Supreme Court ruling isn’t merely that Obama-care has been upheld, but the sinking realization that liberals effectively have a ruling majority with which we will be stuck for a long, long time.  Nothing is more dangerous to the country than a court that will not act as a brake on tyranny.  Let’s call it the Three-LIFO plan and be done with it.

The Dangerous Self-Delusion of Some Conservatives

Saturday, June 30th, 2012

Et Tu, Brute?

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, I have noticed a curious phenomenon in which some conservative commentators seem to be so desperate to find a silver lining to the ruling that they have abandoned all logic.  Consider George Will, who wrote a column in the aftermath of the ruling that actually puts forward the argument that we conservatives should take the fact that Roberts didn’t rely upon the commerce clause as evidence that there might be some constitutional limitation on the federal government after all.  That would be a wonderful aspect of this ruling, if they had overturned the law!  Instead, what we have is a monstrous precedent set in which the court re-writes a law in order to make it constitutional by imputing into the act a tax that had not existed in fact.  This is an unmitigated disaster.  I have heard a few who have noted hopefully that this ruling will energize the conservative base, and while that’s probably the case, I’m not certain I am so concerned about the political fall-out as I am about the long-run constitutional implications.  You see, the political situation may permit us to repair the law, but it doesn’t permit us to immediately repair the damage done to the body of case law  upon which future courts will rely as precedents in their own rulings.

The other thing I have read is the bizarre notion put forward by the National Review that what Roberts did was more conservative because he exercised judicial restraint in not striking down the law.  Balderdash!  Once you realize the legal contortions through which Roberts arrived at this ruling, it makes no sense whatever to claim he hadn’t acted as an activist.  The convoluted logic by which he found a tax in a law that plainly states it does not contain one is an onerous breech of any notion of strict construction.  I cannot conceive of any intellectually rigorous examination of this ruling by which this can be seen as a positive by anybody who is in favor of strict construction.  When it came to the Anti-Injunction section of the ruling, it was held not to have been a tax, but just a few pages later, as Roberts performed mental gymnastics, he declared it was a tax after all.

On Thursday evening, Mark Levin summarized the matter better than anybody I’ve heard speak to this matter, in part because he understands the legalities in question, his Landmark Legal Foundation having been a participant in this case, but also because he knew Justice Roberts years ago when they both worked in the Reagan administration.  Levin’s critique of the decision mirrors most of my own, and indeed, there was one aspect I hadn’t considered until Levin led me to it.  That premise led me to yet another that I don’t believe Levin has yet realized in full.  What one must understand is that this ruling is an unmitigated disaster, and no search for some alleged silver lining can repair it.

What justice Roberets actually did was to expand the definition of what constitutes a permissible tax .  Congress is permitted to levy only certain forms of tax, and this one doesn’t fit the definition of any of them.  In dispensing with that issue, Roberts held that it didn’t matter, and that words don’t matter, and that plain-written legislative language doesn’t matter.  He also ignored the context of the law, and the intent of Congress.  One version of this bill had an actual tax, but Congress could not pass it in that form, so Congress altered it to contain no tax.  What John Roberts did was to ignore the actual text of the legislation, and to say that the labels didn’t matter:  If it looks like a tax, it is one.  The problem with this is that it does nothing to restrain Congress from levying new taxes, and ignores the definitions of what sort of taxes Congress may enact.  This is a wholesale extension of Congressional taxing authority because what Roberts ruled with respect to the particular form of the tax, insofar as the question of whether Congress had met the constitutional limits on whether it could impose it was effectively: “Close enough.”

That is offered to us as evidence of John Roberts’ alleged strict construction?  Close enough?  What this means, effectively, is that if Congress enacts some tax that it has questionable constitutional authority to levy, smiling John will be there to tell us it’s “close enough,” with every leftist monster on the court standing behind him to uphold it.

Ladies and gentlemen, there exists no silver lining to this ruling.   All of the crackpot, delusional happy-talk from some conservatives in media is designed to make you feel better.  You’ve just lost both arms and legs in a brutal assault, but they tell you, you should consider this a happy opportunity to enjoy the comforts of a new wheelchair and mouth-controlled joystick.  You’ve just lost your family to a violent home-invasion, but, they tell you, you should view this as a chance to start over.  The intention here is to keep you calm.  The intention now is to serve a political end, while your country is dying around you.  Your most sacred law, the US Constitution, has been crumpled and tossed into the ash-bin of history, and you are told you should do a happy-dance to the calming sounds of “Oh Happy Days.”

I’d like you to inventory the whole of the conservatives to whom you listen, or whose columns and opinions you read, and I want you to take care to note which of them are imploring you to consider some silver lining.  They are lying.  They have good intentions, many of them, and they have contorted themselves into a formless spaghetti of reasoning in order to find some good in this awful plate of refuse you’ve been handed.  Don’t surrender your minds by sprinkling Parmesan on it and wolfing it down.  Are there some limited political opportunities as a result of this decision? Yes, but they require the fulfillment of a whole laundry-list of “if-then” statements.

IF Mitt Romney is elected, and IF he doesn’t sell us out, and IF we hold the House, and IF we recapture the Senate(and at least 60 votes) and IF the moderates in either house don’t screw us, and IF Boehner and McConnell have the guts to do in repealing what the villains Reid and Pelosi did in passing the ACA, and IF they can deliver a bill to President Romney’s desk, and IF John Roberts and the other liberals on the court can be replaced, and IF Mitt Romney can replace them with actual strict constructionists, THEN you might have a chance to undo this damage.  IF any of these don’t happen, your constitution is effectively dead as a restraint on government.

The danger of self-imposed delusions is that you come to believe them, like a pathological liar.  It is by this form of self-delusion that we’ve permitted our country to lose its roots in reverence for the Constitution.  We cannot defeat the statists by pretending this isn’t the disaster that it is, if we can defeat them at all.  I believe some talking heads know this, but do not want to yield to what will come in the wake of such a monstrosity.  They’re hanging on, stubbornly telling us that the stench of smoke reaching our nostrils is merely an air freshener of a novel scent.  Rather than screaming “Fire,” and warning conservative Americans that the house is ablaze, the barn is wiped out, the surviving farm animals running loose in a frantic bid to stay ahead of the flames licking at their heels, many are now telling you that it’s all okay.  It will be fine.

No, it won’t.

The Sovietization of America: It’s Over

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

Let's Adopt a Flag That Fits

In what can only be termed the greatest abandonment of our Constitution by a sitting Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act was upheld.  This decision heralds the end of the Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, and the American way of life.  This decision is a treason against the Constitution, the American people, and the entire notion of liberty that had enabled our national development and prosperity.  No American is safe from government, under any conceivable circumstance, and none should falsely believe that they might find relief at the bar of justice in the United States any longer.  This decision announces a new form of anarchy, whereby the officials of government have become participants in lawless behavior, ruling in contravention of the founding supreme law of the land, while carrying on a grotesque charade by which they pretend to have followed a law that does not and has never existed.  The Supreme Court has upheld the mandate as a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts has betrayed the Constitution.  At least he’ll be popular on the cocktail party circuit.

To understand what has happened, the individual mandate has been defeated as a command to individuals, but not as a tax on individuals.  In other words, the court has held that the mandate is a tax that can be levied on individuals, but individuals cannot be forced to buy health insurance.  Put another way, the Supreme Court has said that while you cannot be forced to purchase health insurance, but that you can be forced to pay more (extra) taxes if you do not.

The entire healthcare bill has otherwise been upheld.

In short, the country is dead.  They can force you to pay a tax for failing to purchase bubble-gum.  They can do anything they like.  Congress and the President can enact any law they please. You are now slaves, completely.  It’s time to become accustomed to it, and I am hearing conservatives who are surrendering even on the concept of repeal.

Rampage, or whimper? I suspect most will choose the latter.

I reject this opinion.  I reject this court.  I reject the entirety of this anarchical government.




Elana Kagan Must Recuse on Obamacare or Face Impeachment

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

Would I Lie To You?

There are few things more disgusting than the manner in which Obamacare was pushed through Congress, with the whole “Deamed passed” business put forward by Pelosi.  The controversy in this case arises out of the fact that associate Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan had been US Solicitor General at the time of the case, as I’ve previously reported.  I have been skeptical about the claims by the Department of Justice that Kagan had been mostly “walled-off” from the Obamacare debate, because it was already known that she would be nominated by the President to the Supreme Court.  The truth is that Kagan, far from being “walled-off,” was in the loop all along, and that emails now reveal she was aware and copied information relating to Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation’s action on the case.  I remember that day well, because when Levin was announcing Landmark’s intended actions, I was contributing to that endeavor(via paypal.)  What really becomes the point of controversy in this case is that Kagan may even have perjured herself in testimony before the Senate, and whether she recuses herself from this case or not, if this is the case, she must be impeached.

(Click Play for some mood music:)|buffer=5|auto=yes|loop=yes|noinfo=yes|width=80|transparentpagebg=yes

As CNSNews has reported in documents obtained from Judiciary Committee sources, Kagan may have indeed lied in responding to that letter. The most damning answers are those to question numbers eight(8) and nine(9):

8. Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
9. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?

These answers to be contradicted by the emails now released, and this is a stunning development, and it makes perfect sense that these emails were dumped on Friday evening.  The truth is likely to be that Kagan knowingly lied to the committee, and thus makes herself eligible to impeachment.  In any event, she must now recuse herself, but I am have doubts as to whether she will do so.   She is a doctrinaire leftist, and for such folks, the law is merely an exercise in formality:  They are going to do as they damned-well please, and laws only matter so long as they aid the left, but never when it obstructs them.

This is the inconvenient truth of the current standing of Elana Kagan: It appears that she lied to members of the committee in her response, and it’s time to understand that she must recuse herself, and for lying to the committee, she ought to face impeachment.  I would urge you to read and understand the details of the article, and then contact your elected officials accordingly.

Federal Appeals Court Judge Okays Slavery to the State

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Time to Retire?

Tuesday, the US Circuit Court for Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld Obamacare on the basis that the government can effectively do anything it damned well pleases, unless it’s specifically forbidden by a right enumerated in the Constitution.  That’s the net meaning of Judge Silberman’s lunatic-maniacal ruling.  Silberman, a Reagan appointee thought by many to be among the most conservative judges in the country has apparently lost his mind, or he’s been bought off or black-mailed.  Something is thoroughly wrong with Silberman, because nobody can be so incredibly wrong accidentally after a career made  up of consistently thoughtful decisions. This particular ruling is the work of somebody who has abandoned the constitution, its meaning, and the entire notion of constitutional government.  It’s time for Judge Silberman to go, whether by retirement or by impeachment.

Nothing in his long history of decent service explains this departure from reason, and only senility or subversion explains the 76 year-old’s decision.  I don’t know what has turned Judge Laurence Silberman from his lifetime along the path of reason and justice, but I really don’t care.  It’s time to pack up his gavel and get the hell off the bench if he doesn’t know the difference between the regulation of a producer and a consumer.  Judge Silberman’s ruling effectively tells us we can be compelled by government to buy anything it comes to believe is in its interests.

Let’s consider what Judge Silberman said in his ruling:

“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local  — or seemingly passive  — their individual origins,” Judge Silberman wrote in the majority opinion.

Consider what this means.  According to Silberman, even seemingly passive activities may be regulated.  Along these lines, why can’t government require you to purchase stock in IBM, or even require the purchase of government bonds?  What rationale permits him to believe this is the proper role of government?  I shudder to think what must have become of his mind.  Once, he had been a leading constitutional jurist, but now he’s reduced to the level of another statist hack, lying upon his back in supine submission to the almighty state.  This ruling crudely asserts that every action or inaction of any producer or consumer is subject to regulation and command by the Federal government.  If you thought you had lived in a free country, I want you now to know and understand that Laurence Silberman has just given Congress permission to tell you how to spend or not spend every penny you have, earn, are owed, owe, or in any way come to possess.  There is no further limit. None!

I’m not an attorney, and I don’t play one on TV, but let me tell you my layperson’s view of this ruling:  What Judge Silberman has declared in this ruling is that you are a slave to the interests of the United States Federal Government.  You will have no sovereignty over your own economic activity or even inactivity that Congress cannot overrule.  It’s a frightening abandonment of the principles that we’ve enjoyed as a nation for more than 200 years.  Yesterday evening, I covered the “Christmas Tree Tax” and what you must understand is that this ruling of the Appeals Court means that not only does the federal government claim the authority to regulate you and charge you fees, but also to compel you to buy things.  If the government says it can force you to pay a fee if you choose to purchase a Christmas tree is bad enough, but consider what will  happen when Silberman’s ruling serves as the eventual precedent by which you will be ordered to buy a Christmas tree in the first instance.  This is where the court’s ruling leads.  Silberman was joined in this 2-1 decision by another Carter appointee and hack, Judge Harry Edwards, but please do understand that Edwards’ decision in this case isn’t the surprise.  The news in this ruling is Silberman’s abandonment of reason.

This one ruling says more to me about the future of this country than anything else that has happened recently.  We must see this overturned, or we will have no country.  Judge Silberman is happy to consign us all to the status of slaves.  Some will make excuses for  him, given his previous rulings, but I won’t.  If you slip a mental gear, it’s time to go.  We can’t afford this any longer, and we can’t afford such judges either.  Jay Sekulow says there will be an appeal.  Whoopee!  The real loss in this ruling was Judge Silberman’s mind.  Time for him to go.

What Qualifications May a State Place on the Receipt of Benefits?

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

Drug Test? Who? Me?

This question comes up repeatedly, and in the context of the Florida law requiring drug testing for the recipients of public assistance, it’s become a point of controversy.  As I reported Monday, a Federal judge has temporarily suspended the Florida law pending further review.  My opinion on that judge’s competence aside, I wish to understand the nature of the mindset that leads a person to believe they have an entitlement to “benefits” or assistance from the public treasury without some reasonable expectation that they are waiving certain claims to privacy.  The Florida judge raised the 4th Amendment’s protections, but I submit to you that there is no 4th Amendment issue in play.

I simply don’t understand how people are able to concoct legal justifications that have no basis in fact or in law.  Here is the text of the 4th Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Obviously, it is the contention of the ACLU in this Florida case that the requirement for drug-testing to receive assistance constitutes a 4th Amendment violation of the right of the plaintiff to be secure in his person from unreasonable search.   This is a nonsensical claim, however.  This is not a qualified search, because the applicant is not being required to submit to the search(drug test.) He simply won’t get the “benefits” or assistance. End of story. Full stop. A search, to be covered under the 4th Amendment, must be a compulsory search.  Period.  What the Florida law requires in this case is that to complete your application for assistance, you must consent to the search(drug test.) You are not legally required to apply for “benefits” or assistance.  You can walk down the street to your church, or go ask your family for help, or any number of things, but it isn’t relevant to the issue at hand.

Case in point: The Federal Government requires employers to submit Social Security Numbers for verification of a person’s qualification to work in the United States on the basis of legal residency.  You are not required by law to furnish your social security number to a prospective employer, unless you want the job.  Some spiffy ACLU attorney could certainly go make that case, but I doubt that will happen, since it doesn’t fit the agenda of the communistic ACLU.

Of course, going back to the application for public assistance, I wonder why the ACLU doesn’t argue that there’s a Fourth Amendment issue in terms of other qualifications as well.  After all, the fourth amendment guarantees you the right to be free from search and seizures not only of your person and property, but also your effects.  Why does this matter?  In most jurisdictions, Florida included, applicants for assistance are required to furnish copies of their 1040’s, and to demonstrate their impoverished state by virtue of a lack of income.  To establish this lacking, they are required to furnish documentation that can be verified and qualified.

Why don’t they make the argument that the income verification requirement for assistance also subjects applicants to an unreasonable search?  No answer.  This sort of stupidity can be extended indefinitely, but the simplest form of an answer to all of this remains: This is not a fourth amendment issue by virtue of the fact that one’s application for assistance (or “benefits”) is entirely voluntary.  End of story. End of hunt. NEXT!

Please, by all means, feel free to explain to me how this is a Fourth Amendment issue once you include the fact that the application for assistance is voluntary.  If you can’t do that, you’re barking up the wrong tree, and I suggest that you and your ACLU pals go back to finding other unique ways in which to undermine both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  This issue is resolved, irrespective of the legal meanderings of a dunderhead Federal judge.

Federal Judge Should Be Impeached for Gross Incompetence

Monday, October 24th, 2011

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.