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.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Jesse Jackson joined Chris Cuomo as Hillary Clinton's friend who is worse than an enemy
and should instead listen to interpretations of those e-mails by CNN and Chris Cuomo, supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Of course, asserting that e-mails are stolen property of Hillary Clinton or the government is asserting that the e-mails in question are authentic emails of Hillary Clinton - and an admission that Hillary Clinton exposed national security and is unfit as a presidential candidate or president.
Hillary Clinton lost the election, but now that Donald Trump is going to take the White House in January, speculation is abound whether Donald Trump's U.S. Attorney General will investigate and/or prosecute Hillary Clinton in connection with the e-mail scandal.
And, a new friend of Hillary Clinton, who is no better than Chris Cuomo, emerged - the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Speaking to Michigan University students and administration, Rev. Jesse Jackson claimed that President Obama should issue a blanket pardon for Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, as President Ford did for former President Nixon.
There are several problems with such a statement of the Reverend, though.
First, there is the little problem of a Reverend making political speeches and engaging in political activities and the IRS tax-free status of his organizations, if he has any. If the Reverend presides over any church or non-profit organization - I am not sure whether he is - his church or non-profit may lose its IRS tax-free status because of the Reverend's political speeches.
Second, President Nixon's pardon was given illegally - and so asking President Obama to follow example of President Ford in relation to pardon unconstitutionally given to President Nixon does not portray the Reverend, a civil rights activist, in a good light.
Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President of the United States "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
"Offenses" of President Nixon for which President Ford pardoned him were impeachable offenses, and, in fact, the House voted in July of 1974 to open impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, so President Ford lacked constitutional power to pardon President Nixon - which, obviously, did not stop him from doing that.
Of course, the pardon was given by President Ford in September of 1974, after President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, and, thus, was arguably outside of the reach of impeachment proceedings.
The next thing is the term "offenses". The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the U.S. President the power to pardon people who have never been charged with a criminal offense against the United States, and the text of the U.S. Constitution cannot be interpreted to give the President the powers that are not explicitly given in the text.
That President Ford did for President Nixon exactly what Reverent Jesse Jackson asks President Obama to do for Hillary Clinton - pardon her where criminal charges were never filed - does not confirm, by an illegal precedent, that such powers actually exist under the U.S. Constitution.
President Nixon dodged impeachment by his resignation and was never formally criminally charged.
Hillary Clinton dodged criminal charges by apparently being cozy with Loretta Lynch and James Comey, and escaped impeachment by not being elected president, but is still not out of the hot water as to future criminal charges - with Donald Trump coming to office and a hard-core U.S. Attorney General likely to be appointed.
Now, the Reverend Jesse Jackson publicly appeals to President Obama to do "the same" for Hillary Clinton as President Ford did for the then-former President Nixon.
Yet, the very text of the presidential pardon power implies that the pardon is for an offense committed against the United States.
And, asking to pardon Hillary Clinton will taint her even more as a pardoned criminal.
As I said, with friends like Chris Cuomo and Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton does not really need enemies.