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

What a farce and slap in the face of our fallen soldiers to have Ruth Bader Ginsburg (or any other your Supreme Court justices or senators) buried in the national Arlington cemetery

 Don't you think that this is very crass and disrespectful to all fallen our soldiers to have deceased justices of the US Supreme Court be buried in the national Arlington cemetery?


Working like kings and queens in the US Supreme Court, a very privileged uncomfortable position, does not come close to be compared to the hardships and sacrifice of military service and giving you life for your country, literally.


That's a travesty and a farce, and that should stop.

2 comments:

  1. Having served our nation with grace and dignity for forty years, first on the US Court of Appeals and then as a Supreme Court Justice, and as the wife of a US Army veteran, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has every right to be interred at Arlington.
    You should be aware of this, and given that many of the rights you enjoy in this, your adopted nation, are a direct result of her rulings, you should be more respectful of her memory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm writing under my real name. You're commenting anonymously, under a fake profile. Her husband could be a US Army veteran, but she was not. And let me be the judge of her input into rights that we enjoy in this country, and have started enjoying less and less with the shenanigans of Democrats over the last four years, and that includes egregious judicial misconduct of Ruth Bader Ginsburg that I wrote about on this blog. She should have been impeached, taken off the bench and prosecuted, not given the honor of being interreed in the Arlington national cemetery next to our fallen soldiers. The rights I enjoy in this country are not because of her but despite her. And I personally contributed a lot to protecting people's rights - to a lot more personal sacrifice than Ruth Bader Ginsburg did, so don't you dare sermonize to me on what rights I enjoy here. I talked to people who knew her before she founded the ACLU, secured for fascists the right to march through a village of Holocaust survivors and that's secured support from the extreme right to pave her path to the US Supreme Court. They knew her as a very mediocre legal aid lawyer in New York City and they do not believe that the decisions ascribe to her were actually authored by her judging by her abilities as a lawyer that they witnessed. Her supposed brilliancy in decisions is due only to having been written by brilliant unnamed law clerks from Ivy league law schools that slaved for her. Putting her name on those decisions is plagiarism pure and simple.

      So don't you dare lecture me that I need to respect a woman who does not deserve any respect, but richly deserved investigation and prosecution for her misconduct on the bench and for her criminal activities in fixing court cases against the Trump administration sued in his official capacity which means that when she was fixing court cases she was doing that against the American people, committing a federal crime.

      Delete