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, September 20, 2020

Some preliminary thoughts about President Trump's list of nominees to the US Supreme Court

 Started to research the list of nominees of President Donald Trump to the US Supreme Court.


This post has been dictated, I'm trying to edit out errors, please bear with me.


Very very very very depressing, and not for reasons Democrats claim.


 I have watched the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh, I understand the political situation and I understand the need of putting a judge through quickly and as smoothly as possible under the circumstances through the confirmation process.


And yet.


For all that Donald Trump claims that his anti-establishment, the nominees are establishment on very many levels - upper government echelon, private schools and what is most disturbing clerkships in the US Supreme Court.


I will not be revealing details that I found, it is premature at this time.


I am planning an article about this where it will be published fully with detailed analysis.


What I can tell at this time is that certain candidates and the history of their legal career give to a disinterested public observer an impression that the US Supreme Court is operated as a private quid pro quo venture, a closed order where cases are taken before the US Supreme Court are taken exclusively on the basis of personal connections, not merit.


And the recently sainted (as a person of Jewish faith who has died during the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah and thus has become a Jewish saint called tzaddik) late judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was complicit in it.


Once again not one candidate with a prior criminal defense experience, and let's remember that these judges literally decide people's life or death, specifically death because they are deciding last minute appeals from death penalties, federal and state.


In that unfortunately president Donald Trump cannot be distinguished from any other president before him including the Democrat's dears Barack Obama and Bill Clinton who both similarly put on the court exclusively judges with prosecutorial mentality.


The only Justice on the US Supreme Court who was not a prosecutor before coming to the US Supreme Court was actually the just departed Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


Now the eight remaining justices are all former prosecutors, appointed to the court by both Republican and Democratic presidents.


So for all the fights over the US Supreme Court seats between the two major parties in the United States what we the people get is, uniformly, former prosecutors with inbred notion that they can do absolutely anything including malicious and corrupt conduct in office with impunity because they are immune.


Unfortunately, president Donald Trump is following in this trend and adding people with the same mentality.


People who get appointed there by all presidents are, first, licensed attorneys - which means that the federal judges are controlled by state governments, state courts from which they take and review appeals, such a conflict of interest is not good. There is no requirement in the US Constitution that your Supreme Court judges justices must be state-licensed attorneys, or attorneys at all.


Number two is that they're all former prosecutors with the respective accusatory mentality, presumption of guilt in their minds, and long years of "enjoying" the illegally given by the US Supreme Court to themselves and to prosecutors absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt conduct embedded into their minds as a matter of entitlement.


That means that after having enjoyed a lifetime of immunity for their own malicious and corrupt conduct in office there is no way in hell that these people are going to shoot themselves in the foot and declare their own actions unconstitutional.


If we the People think that partial qualified immunity to the police given by the same US Supreme Court illegally is bad, how bad is the self-given entitlement by judges and prosecutors to do absolutely anything including corruption and crimes in a court proceeding and be absolutely immune for it to the victims of their behavior.


Number three they're mostly graduates from private including Ivy league schools and members of the American blue blood, practically hereditary top government establishment.


As such they have absolutely no real life experience of ordinary Americans and no care or concern about the plight or rights of ordinary people.


And number four, a lot of them are former clerks to the US Supreme Court justices which indicates that they were previously bound by the courts illegal code of silence to the clerks, and personal loyalty to the judges not the Constitution and the American people, and moreover that they complied with this illegal code, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to make their brilliant and financially beneficial legal careers.


It is very sad.


And we the People should put pressure on our Representatives in the US Congress to put an end to this travesty, change jurisdiction term limits and makeup of the Court.


It is our court, existing on our money and that should be serving for our benefit, not a private quid pro quo personal venture of the American new hereditary royalty.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)