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.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Shut up, Beyonce or shut up, Giuliani?
Beyoncé did the wrong thing when she criticized that epidemic - Rudy Guliani says.
Quentin Tarantino did the wrong thing when he criticized that epidemic - as police officers' groups say while trying to organize boycotts of Mr. Tarantino's movies.
It's obviously not bad to ENGAGE in police misconduct, it is bad to EXPOSE it.
That's a song as old as the world itself. Do not criticize those in power, that is bad and unpatriotic.
But, I wonder who will now undertake to criticize the Human Rights Council of the United Nations for doing the same as Beyoncé and Tarantino?
And, the UN criticized the United States for failure to control police brutality and, basically, equating police brutality with torture:
Police unions and Mr. Guliani were not seen boycotting or demonstrating in front of the U.N. building in New York City, and the reason is obvious - because it would be exceedingly stupid to blame the mirror for correctly reflecting the problem, and Mr. Giuliani and those behind the police unions' "protests" are not stupid.
When the mirror reflecting your ugly face is a powerful and prestigious international organization - you swallow it.
When the mirror reflecting your ugly face are two entertainers expressing the very same message as the powerful international organization - you bash the suckers and assert the right of police forces to engage in that epidemic of misconduct without interference, and for the public to be blissfully unexposed to the inconvenient realities of life and to have "clean simple fun" watching the Super-bowl, munching wings and drinking beer.
"Bread and circuses" is what Romans said the plebs needs.
Bread and circuses, "good plain fun", and no interference with the gray matter from the likes of Beyonce.
So, please, shut up, Beyoncé, Tarantino, um... the United Nations?
Yet, thanks for the cell phone revolution that allowed to document police misconduct as it was happening, thanks to the Internet revolution and the wonder of Facebook that helped spread that information and raise people's awareness of it while the mass media kept their collective heads in the sand, the epidemic of police misconduct is knocking into our hearts.
So - shut up, Mr. Giuliani, we need to deal with this disgraceful problem. Now.