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.

Saturday, October 24, 2020

Elections2020: on ethnic shaming by fascist Democrats-2. Condescending shaming of Cuban Americans for their support of Trump and aversion to socialism

 I have posted previously an article showing evidence of ethnic shaming by Democrats of a Russian American, a US citizen and a mother of a US soldier, for daring to say that the Democratic idol Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a corrupt judge.  

(Remember, you may not criticize RBG for proven corruption and misconduct, you may only bash judges for being nominated by Trump to the US Supreme Court, that's the new Democrat "law" in America).

Since then, there was a series of articles where Democrats lamented as "Trump-induced hatred and bigotry" when somebody yelled at the 2nd Lady of the State of Pennsylvania (a former illegal immigrant from Brazil) - "go back to your country ".

When I posted my article in the commenting thread about it showing how Democrats suggest that I go back to Russia simply because I dared to criticize their darling judge Ginsburg, some more insults if the same kind were directed at me.

A (former) illegal immigrant from Brazil supporting Biden cannot be told to go back to her country.  It is bigotry and ethnic hatred caused by Trump.

A longtime American citizen from Russia can. It is not bigotry or ethnic hatred.

Now some Latino American citizens, Cuban Americans - those voting for Trump - can be told by Democrats to go back to Cuba.  That is not ethnic bigotry or hatred.

Here is how that ethnic bashing went today on Facebook:













































If you do not vote for Biden, you ain't black and you ain't Latino.  Got it?

And you know nothing about the true socialism, even if you lived in a socialist country half your life.  You are just a poor brainless thing that does not know what is good for it.

And you can go back to your country.


And no, it is not ethnic hate speech.  Facebook told me so.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)