"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.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Did the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pack her suitcase for New Zealand yet?

In July of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg openly stated that if Donald Trump wins, it's time to move to New Zealand, a completely unethical behavior for a judge, and especially a judge who knew an election related case can come in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The election-related case actually did come in front of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsuburg on November 7, 2016, and Justice Ginsburg, instead of recusing from the case because she has made her dislike of Donald Trump publicly known, allowed herself to admonish Donald Trump not to "intimidate voters" - just because Donald Trump and his supporters wanted to monitor elections to prevent voter fraud.

Of course, why would Donald Trump want to how elections are handled when his opponent was already cock-sure that she will win, to the point that a FBI Director was afraid of going against Hillary Clinton as a future president and refused to prosecute her, twice, under circumstances when anybody else would have been indicted and arrested long time ago.

But, one thing was apparent - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when "half-joking" that she will disappear to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected, was also cock-sure that he will not be elected.  In a kind of elitist disdain.

Now that Donald Trump is elected, and especially that he took on judicial bias in his election campaign

(see my blogs about it here, here, here, here and here),

I hope that President Trump will clean up the pigsties of corruption in the American court system - up to its upper echelon, the U.S. Supreme Court that long stopped operating as a court and operates only as a marble palace fixing cases for friends and for bribes (oops, trips, speech assignments, wining and dining, book deals).

Well, after the American people have actually elected Donald Trump,  is Ruth Bader Ginsburg packing her suitcases to New Zealand yet?

She promised, after all.

No comments:

Post a Comment