"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.

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Democrats rejoice in their "victory" and plan what to do with "Trumpsters"

 A few options were suggested.

1. "Excise" Trump supporters from society - as "cancer".

2. "Re-educate" them - in camps, if necessary, after the compassionate Democrats drag you "from under your rocks" (see scans below).  And to start doing it right now, because "vulnerability is a powerful window" - you know how crooks and cult leaders are usually luring people who are in grief? That's how "Trumpsters" are going to be re-educated by the noble, educated and smart (after Biden supposedly "won" - which he did not, just read the 12th Amendment).  They are relieved now and they are planning how to clean America of over 70 million Americans who dared to vote for their political opponent.

Anyway, "Trumpsters'" "thinking MUST change".  And, they need to put their clever heads together as to how to accomplish this feat.

Even though "Trumpsters" are usually dumb and gun-happy people who do not see "great intentions" in attempts to "re-educate" them.

3. Just send Trump supporters to "GULAG" - without any "re-education".

4. Turn them into "renewable energy".  Just like Hitler did with Jews and Russians, remember? Cremation - and phew! - no Trumpsters around.

Authentic scans of Democrats' discussions personally collected by the author off Facebook today.  The conversation was happening this past weekend, when Democrats have just learned that CNN has picked the next US President. Which they consider totally legit, 12th Amendment notwithstanding.  Remember, they are the "educated" and "smart" ones.

Earlier I have published 2 articles about ethnic shaming by Democrats of

1. a Russian American - on political grounds, and of

2. Cuban Americans - also on political grounds.

That is the same bunch that vulgarly and relentlessly has been bashing Trump, his family members (including his minor son) and anybody who would support Trump politically or personally - in the worst gutter language possible.

Now they are magnanimously planning to "save America" and re-educate Trump supporters - just like China is doing, possibly, with its political dissidents.

This is America today.







So, my Republican friends, just know what's coming if Biden is to win.

"Compassionate fascism", re-education - at best.

Or "excising" you, like cancer, from the American society - or camps/GULAG (there is already a legal basis for it, Korematsu v United States where putting American citizens based on their ethnic origin into concentration camps in the US was considered constitutional by the US Supreme Court).

Or turning you in the "renewable energy".

The "Green New Deal", you know.