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.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

California to Trump: save us, finance our dams, give us federal aid money, but stay away from enforcement of federal laws within the state. The rule of law, California style?

There are conflicting vibes coming out of the blessed sunny state of California.
  1. It has a movement to separate from the United States because of the election of Donald Trump - and many people on social media have been making statements in support of such separation, claiming that California will be self-sufficient once it separates;
  2. California defies the federal government by:
    1. introducing legislative bills to make California a "sanctuary state", in defiance of federal criminal and immigration laws;
    2. defying federal criminal laws against harboring illegal aliens by actually establishing sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants;
    3. suing the President in his official capacity (which has the legal meaning of residents of California suing all American citizens) to block him from denying federal aid money because of California's defiance of criminal and immigration laws by establishing "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants; and
  3. California is asking the President for emergency federal aid to mend the dam that it did not mend before, with all its Hollywood and the Silicon Valley money, obviously preferring to spending money on educating and providing medical care and other social programs for illegal immigrants, and on defying federal government, including through court actions.
I do not see much logic in this behavior.

Maybe, there is a point for California to separate from the Union? 

Just as a matter of experiment. 

To see how fast California will ask to re-admit it into the Union - which is not going to be a given.

But, why do I think that the separation will never happen?

Maybe, because the Governor asked the U.S. for money?

Maybe, because the proud sanctuary city of San Francisco is suing the federal government claiming that SF can defy federal laws, but that federal government cannot, as a consequence, deny SF voluntary federal aid?

By the way, suing the federal government for withholding the federal aid monies that the federal government is not obligated by law to provide to the states in the first place is exceptionally ... how to say that politely ... "disingenuous" is the word usually used in court papers.

It is rather stupid to sue a benefactor for withholding money the benefactor does not have to give. 

California should really make up its mind - either to be totally and completely independent from federal laws, and then from federal money, too, as well as from the protection of the large country with a powerful military defense forces - or to start complying with federal laws.

Right about now.

Defiance of such laws is becoming costly for American taxpayers.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)