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, January 31, 2016

Susan Sarandon on why she will not vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman: "that's very patronizing to women to think we all just follow our genitalia to candidates"

Having lived for 35 years under the so-called socialism in the Soviet Union/Russia, I, of course, will never vote for Bernie Sanders - not for a person with no sound economic plan other than how to raise taxes to 90% and "invest into the infrastructure" which is usually financed by municipal bonds backed by "full faith and credit" of property taxes - so jobs created by such an "investment" can cause massive tax foreclosures and people losing their homes.

 As Margaret Thatcher once said:


Yet, recently, a Sanders supporter, actress Susan Sarandon reportedly made a statement at one of the "Bernie" rallies that reflects on the so-called "gender-specific" voting in elections.

Susan Sarandon said that "it would be patronizing to vote for front-runner Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman", and that it is "very patronizing to women to think we all just follow our genitalia to candidates."

Is that right?

But - didn't a female judge in the State of New York, most recently, made her gender her biggest election campaign "marketing" point?  That's Judges Lisa Fisher of the Greene County Supreme Court, see here and here.

Wasn't the fraudulent election of Judge Christina Ryba of the Albany County Supreme Court, celebrated as "historic" because she is an African-American WOMAN, see here and here?

And, didn't New York State Senate congratulate the "confirmed" Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore - who was confirmed after a licensed attorney, Senator Bonacic, who was disqualified from voting on her confirmation due to his financial interest in pleasing her as a future regulator of the legal profession (see John Oliver's show on conflicts of interest in state legislatures):





blocked any opponents of her "confirmation" from testifying and refused to conduct any meaningful investigation of her potentially criminal conduct well covered for years by the press - didn't New York Senate congratulate he as the "second WOMAN" appointed to that position?

As I said before on this blog, we should not be picking our candidates for governmental positions by their genitalia as qualifications.

And, yes, I agree with Susan Sarandon 100% on the point that it is demeaning to think that women will "follow their genitalia" in their voting decisions, even though it is not unheard of for women to vote for a handsome man or for men voters to vote for a pretty woman - let's call it "the Sarah Palin syndrome".

 But - patronizing or not, the only thing those "honorable" public officials crave is the ultimate prize, to get elected, for a long term, for a huge salary with benefits and with the benefit of doing practically nothing and having zero accountability and unlimited power over people's lives.

Isn't it self-demeaning to promote yourself to a position of public trust only because of your gender?

Right, Judge Lisa Fisher?



 Right, Judge Christina Ryba?





 Right, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore?





 Should we celebrate "historical developments" where these women were elected (Fisher, Ryba) or appointed (DiFiore), or should we mourn that we will be ruled by incompetent control freaks (Fisher), unethical (Ryba) and/or criminally corrupt public officials (DiFiore)?


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)