"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.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court precedents and the continued circus around their legal status. The case of Roy Moore and the apologies of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt

The U.S. Constitution that all attorneys and judges in the United States take an oath to support, obey and enforce has a Supremacy Clause which does not include U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Federal courts punish people left and right for saying just that.

Chief Judge of the State of Alabama Roy Moore openly stated that the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage is not the Law of the Land.

Chief Judge Roy Moore was suspended without pay for stating, and adhering to the contents of the Federal Constitution that every judge and attorney in this country takes a pledge to obey, enforce and uphold.

By the way, Chief Judge Roy Moore, in an interview with the CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, son and brother of two New York State Governors, cornered Chris Cuomo with a question whether Chris Cuomo would have followed Dred Scott had he been a judge at the time Dred Scott was decided, and Chris Cuomo said "yes".

Now the circus continues with the Kansas State Attorney General first citing in a brief to a U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled that African Americans are second rate people and do not have a right to sue for assault, and then apologized for citing this U.S. Supreme Court case.

The Kansas attorney general cited the Dred Scott in a case where the state law banning 3rd trimester abortion was sought to be revived.

The Dred Scott case was cited by the Kansas Attorney General for the proposition (used in that case to support endorsement of slavery) that the announcement of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence does not have any legal meaning and is just puffery, hollow words.

Then, the Attorney General apologized for citing Dred Scott and withdrew the motion where it was cited.

Nevertheless, Dred Scott remains a U.S. Supreme Court precedent which remains on the books and required to plunge the country into a civil war in order to undo that ruling - so many lives could be spared had the U.S. Supreme Court decided that case differently, but it did not.

The Kansas Attorney General finally apologized for citing to Dred Scott in support of his arguments.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Judge Roberts unapologetically relied on Dred Scott in his dissent in the same sex marriage case.

Chief Judge Roberts pointed out Dred Scott case, amazingly, as the first case where due process was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike state legislation, and thus, Chief Judge Roberts implied that Dred Scott was a foundation case for due process in this country.

In Dred Scott, as Chief Judge Roberts pointed out in his dissent in Obergefell v Hodges, the same sex marriage case, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck a state statute, a "Missouri Compromise" giving humanity to African Americans, whether they are slaves or free descendants of slaves, on the basis that that legislation "restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders".

Chief Judge Roberts acknowledged that Dred Scott it took a war to overrule that case:

Yet, Chief Judge Roberts blames the entire due process approach as "meddling" into the affairs of the state - putting on the same grounds Dred Scott that denied humanity to African Americans and the Lochner case which was simply enforcing economic freedom of bakery employee to work as many hours as they want without interference from the state.

Chief Judge Roberts was not punished for his views by suspension from office - the way Judge Roy Moore did by refusing to follow the majority opinion as "the Law of the Land" - which it isn't, according to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that both Judge Roy Moore and those who suspended him, are sworn to obey.

We really need to decide what is the legal of U.S. Supreme Court cases when it causes so much havoc in this country - where

  • its precedents are cited in support of various laws, then
  • people apologize for citing some precedents,
  • are punished for disobeying other precedents,
  • are punished for citing the U.S. Constitution, whether it is the Supremacy Clause, the 11th Amendment or the 1st Amendment, and where
  • the U.S. Supreme Court precedents are used so selectively that
  • people are punished simply for citing in their briefs those U.S. Supreme Court precedents that the particular lower court does not like to be used, because it interferes with their pre-judgment of the case. 
That most often happens in civil rights cases and in cases where attorneys are sanctioned for criticizing the government and especially judges, and cite in their defense the U.S. Supreme Court cases prohibiting content-based regulations of speech without "strict scrutiny".

We really need to decide for ourselves as citizens of the United States of America whether we as a country are actually ruled by the U.S. Constitution, or whether our government forced us to accept that the U.S. Constitution has become simply a necessary symbol to take public office and then be discarded and disregarded.

Not only this year's presidential elections are making this country into a laughing stock of the world - the circus with the status of U.S Supreme Court precedents cannot invoke respect to our country either.

If we are a constitutional democracy, then we, and all of our public servants, all public officials in all branches of the government, at all levels, local, state and federal, must follow our own U.S. Constitution and every part of it, including the Supremacy Clause.

Otherwise, we are not who we say we are, and are not the constitutional democracy.

We are a theocracy of the courts, where we are forced to believe and follow what the prophets in courts think the U.S. Constitution is - not what we the People think what it is.

" The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty."

I am subscribing to every single word of this quotation.

We the People are the popular collective sovereign of this country, and We the People allowed ourselves to be ruled by our servants, whether they are legislators, prosecutors, police or judges only within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution, its text and not how it is interpreted by the group of 9 people, is the Law of the Land in this country.

In that Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court cases are NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.

What are they?

They are the last appellate decisions in a certain, separate, particular cases.

Not less, but not more.

No comments:

Post a Comment