THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
On #RuthGinsburg's dreams about cases and expected departure to New Zealand
And, the U.S. Supreme Court saddled this country with president George W. Bush when there was every reason to believe that it was Al Gore who won the presidential elections, and when the case was rife with conflicts of interest of not just one, but several justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the case - in other words, there is a clear implication that the Gore v Bush case was fixed.
Now we have yet another presidential election where a Gore v Bush scenario is likely, and passions and stakes are even higher than in Gore v Bush.
In Gore v Bush, at the very least, Bush was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.
In Trump v Clinton case, Trump is not acknowledged as a true Republican by many in the Republican party, and both Trump and Clinton have legal troubles during their campaigns - where Trump gets a beating in federal court by a clearly biased judge, and Clinton gets a pardon from criminal prosecution from her own private attorney Loretta Lynch, after a private meeting with Bill Clinton, through a highly irregular FBI investigation where no transcripts are made, no records are kept, Director of the FBI did not conduct her interview, did not speak to those who did, and did not turn the case into the grand jury before claiming that there is nothing to prosecute.
So, the government is clearly slanted towards Hillary Clinton, that is clear.
Yet, when a U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsurg joins the fray and starts making comments that she needs to disappear to New Zealand if Trump is elected, that Trump is a fake, and an inconsistent and implicitly stupid blabber-er - you can have a sneak preview that, if these presidential elections end up in a tie, a case-fixing will happen again, and Ruth Ginsburg already announced how she will judge the case. She already pre-judged it.
Ruth Ginsurg MUST know that the case may end up like Gore v Bush.
If that happens, now that she made her position clear as to one of potential future litigants, what will she do? Disqualify herself? Or, knowing that there is no judicial power in the United States higher than her court, remain and impose her personal prejudices as to the candidates upon the country?
While there is no prohibitions on public statements for judges and justices of any level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, judges are bound not to engage in conduct that may result in a conflict of interest, and Ruth Ginsburg is engaging in such a conduct, knowing that current presidential elections may end up in a tie and a court case in front of her.
Ruth Ginsburg's inappropriate statements about Trump are not her only inappropriate comments about cases she may be called to decide in the future.
Ruth Ginsburg also recently disclosed her "dream" to overturn "Citizens United".
When a judge has a strong feeling about a case that did not come in front of her yet for reversal, she just announced that she will grab the opportunity to pre-judge that case based on her dream.
Isn't it time to retire for Judge Ginsburg? Not waiting for impeachment proceedings?