"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, April 6, 2023

Dishonesty, incompetence and political agenda wins a top judicial seat in Wisconsin - oh, well

 As you have, probably, noticed, I have ceased to write in this blog - at least, to write often.

And for a reason:  the country has changed too much since I have first started to write here 9 years ago in 2014, and it appears now that we have a firmly established selective political "justice" for every single one of us, which back in 2014 belonged only in the area of attorney disciline which I wrote here about.

Now the sanctity of a law office and the security of the attorney-client privilege was violated for all on the American soil through multiple searches of President Trumps' attorneys' law offices and now, through the indictment of Trump based on forced statements of his attorney under the threat that if he does not cough up some garbage agaisnt Trump, his wife will be jailed - because if it is against Trump, no law may protect him or anybody who dares to represent him.

His attorneys were intimidated, searched, convicted, disbarred, threatened, his own home was searched, now he was indicted - no law is needed.

I have already stated that multiple times over the course of the recent years that the justice system works in a very straightforward way, and for everybody, and if you position one person below the law simply based on his identity - you have just allowed that principle to be applied to yourself, too, and to everybody located within jurisdiction of the United States.

The rule of law works, through separate specific cases, either to support that same rule of FOR EVERYBODY, or to ERODE it - also for EVERYBODY.

If, since the "Russian collusion hoax", the public was TAUGHT by the leftstream media to believe, CONTRARY TO THE LAW, that indictments against Trump's associates, and against Trump himself is EVIDENCE, and that what Trump and his associates needed to do is PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE, that belief tainted jury pools across the country in every single criminal jury trial on the Amerian soil for every single defendant involved.

Now Democrats are working hard on undermining a yet another fundamental constitutional right - to a fair and impartial judicial review, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, by working, in a politically selective way, of course, in two OPPOSITE directions at the same time, on the issue of judicial ethics and judicial misconduct.

They, on the one hand, ardently push in Congress for the establishment of a code of ethical conduct for US Supreme Court justices - and they are right on that, even though they never wanted to notice the gross ethical violations of their now dearly departed Justice Ruth Ginsburg who not only presided over Trump cases while publicly professing her hatred against him, but proactively influenced cases in courts below, conducting secret negotiations with a federal appellate court in Hawaii hearing a Trump case before it even reached her docket.  Democrats keep mum about it, and, moreover, viciously attack those who dare to point that out.

Yet, they, on the other hand, blast President Trump for LEGITIMATELY criticizing the judge presiding over his made-up criminal case for presiding over a case where the judge openly hates the Defendant, and where his closest family members are in the pay of the defendant's orior and current political opponents.

The hypocrisy with the judicial ethics thing-y has hit a new high (or is it a low?) where the leftstream media is now celebrating that a candidate for the seat of a Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice has "won" that race by publicly pledging as to how she will rule on a certain issue regardless of what evidence will be in front of her, "overturning the abortion ban".

Yet, such a claim testifies to the winning candidate's, at the same time, dishonesty and incompetence.

Dishonesty because a judge is elected to the Supreme Court of the State to do appellate work and nothing else, and rule only on the issue in front of her - not use her position of power to promote her own and her party's political agenda.  In fact, she pledged that, if elected, she will do politics in court instead of doing her job - and the public happily elected her.

Incompetence - because, had she read what she so disingenuously (that is a clever legal term replacing the straightfoward word "stupid") called "abortion ban", that SCOTUS decision has actually GAVE THE STATES a right to decide whether they want or do not want to allow abortion, as the power to protect health and safety of their residents is the exclusive power of the states, she would have been pledging to the public to "OVERTURN" a "ban" that DOES NOT EXIST.

The "overturning" pledge is even more scary that the US Supreme Court has given this power where it belongs by the US Constitution, its 10th Amendment - to people, to enact an abortion permission, or ban, through their representatives in state courts.  What the judge pledged - ahead of time - to do is to read into the Wisconsin State Constitution what is not there, in the event the people of the State of Wisconsin DO enact an abortion ban, which, whether the judge and her political party likes it or not, will then become law.

Thus, the winning judicial candidate in Wisconsin was trying to either publicly and bravely slam down an open door, or to claim that she may single-handedly defy the State Constitution under which she received job and power.

The sad part about an unethical and incompetent candidate winning the race for the position of a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice is that (1) now she will get to set for the state the common law and interpretations of state statutory laws; and (2) will regulalte, now appreciate the sad irony, the ethics of behavior of attorneys, admitting or exclulding them from practice - and from the reach of their clients - on her stupid, incompetent and politically tainted agenda.

Of course, now impeachment of the stupid and incompetent justice-elect is rumored to be on the agenda of the State Senate - and, obviously, for a good reason.

So - celebrate it if you can, while you can - maybe the law, common sense and justice will prevail over the "winning" judge who has PLEDGED to violate her oath of office before taking it, for political agenda - and won because of it.

OR try to work to - legally - undo the avalanche of politicizing of the justice system by every possible legal means.