It is apparent that #JudgeOluStevens had a right, applying the U.S. Supreme Court precedent not only on point, but even directed against the State of Kentucky - prohibiting peremptory challenges that pick the jury not reflecting the racial cross-section of the population.
After all, a criminal defendant has a right to a trial by jury of his "peers", by a representative composition of those "peers", including the racial composition.
In August of this year, the Judicial Conduct Commission of the State of Kentucky defied the U.S. Supreme Court precedent by forcing Judge Olu Stevens to accept disciple for doing his job and for following the U.S. Supreme Court precedent on point and for trying to eradicate racial discrimination in criminal proceedings - that is already sending a disproportionate number of African Americans to prison.
I am sure Judge Stevens accepted the discipline of a 90-day suspension in order to keep his position, salary and, possibly law license - because otherwise he was absolutely correct in what he is doing, and did not violate any laws. On the opposite, he followed a U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as he was supposed to.
Now, the Kentucky judiciary has aggravated its position as a racist system of "justice" even more - by ruling, through its highest court, that despite the U.S. Supreme Court precedent pronouncing, 30 years ago, that it is a violation of criminal defendant's 6th and 14th Amendment when the prosecution is allowed to strike all black jurors on the venire in a trial of a black defendant, judges in Kentucky do not have a right to strike "randomly selected" jury panels lacking racial diversity, because, according to Kentucky highest court, giving a judge such advantages is "short-sighted" and advantages of such power will be "short-lived".
Here is a portion of the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court's 30-year-old precedent on point against the State of Kentucky doing the exact same thing that it is arrogantly doing all over again, 30 years down the road, and punishing a black judge for asserting the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in his courtroom:
I wrote recently how a New York judge, Judge Gary Rosa was trying to defy (based on his and his law clerk's personal grudges that I am going to address with the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct) two U.S. Supreme Court precedents on point by claiming that applicability of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent is based non on unifying legal issues, but on "matters" and "fact patterns" - which prompted me to write an article that absolute judicial immunity, then, if Judge Gary Rosa, or any other judge, is sued, should be given, under the same principles, only in cases with the same "matter" and "fact pattern" as in Stump v Sparkman, the precedent relied upon to give judges absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts.
In other words, that judicial immunity should not be given unless the case involved unlawful sterilization of a minor without notice, appointment of counsel or opportunity to be heard, under false pretenses that the surgery to be done is of appendicitis - which the teen did not medically need.
I provided an example pertaining to applicability of 1st Amendment U.S. Supreme Court precedents -
1) Flag burning, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989);
2) Cross burning, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003),
3) a Nazi march through a city of Holocaust survivors, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977);
4) a protest with nasty slogans in front of a fallen soldier’s funeral, Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011);
5) false claims of valor in battle, United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___ (2012);
6) regulation of content of commercial signs – Reed v Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).
In this particular case, no comparison of issues in cases with different matters is even required - because, in Kentucky, everything is identical with the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Batson v Kentucky - the "matter" (as per Judge Rosa), the "fact pattern", the unifying legal issue, and even the State against which the decision was made.
At nearly the same time as the Kentucky decision defying Batson v Kentucky, the highest court in Oregon did the same - refusing to overturn criminal conviction of a black man where out of 12 jurors only 1 was black.
I wonder if Oregon Supreme Court coordinated its decision with Kentucky Supreme Court in insisting on legitimacy of racial discrimination in criminal proceedings - but the criminal defendants certainly can coordinate arguments on their appeals for certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court, where a lengthy opinion from SCOTUS is not even required - cases can be overturned simply because of defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent on point.
I also wonder how the U.S. Supreme Court will react to the growing defiance by highest state courts of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent:
- from 1st Amendment for regulation of conduct (as in attorney discipline throughout the state - one more interesting case was reported in Wyoming where attorney #Richard Szekely inadvertently turned in a draft saying, under the signature line designating the judge - "Honorable Jane Eakin Circuit Court Witch" - and was reprimanded and charged with contempt of court for that, in violation of 1st Amendment prohibition on content-based regulation of speech without strict scrutiny - for comparison, New York did not consider an ethical violation warranting discipline when an attorney called judges "whores who want to become madams", but regularly disciplines attorneys criticizing judges for misconduct and corruption in motions to recuse) to
- same sex marriage - the same Kentucky, Alabama, and Oregon, made headlines for their defiance of Obergefell v Hodges, a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent - by the way, 8 judges joined Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore suspended for defiance of Obergefell in his appeal of the suspension;
- and now, racial discrimination in criminal proceedings - where Kentucky joined Oregon in nearly simultaneous decisions defying Batson v Kentucky.
It is interesting whether the U.S. Supreme Court will clamp down on defiance of its precedents by the states or will let them continue undermining its authority and power.
No comments:
Post a Comment