After the gay marriage issue and the unconstitutional denial of prisoners' voting rights (even while on parole, after serving jail time for low level criminal offenses) now this...
Apparently, a San Diego judge has placed an injunction on the military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, again just weeks before an election according to a published AP article.
My question on this issue has always been, just how many in even the gay community serving at this point even care or would actually prefer to keep such a private issue as their sexual preference truly private?
I mean, the military is not supposed to be a dating service anyway, so just what has this particular rather personal issue have to do with serving in the military in this country, other than without such disclosure it does make battlefield housing and living arrangements a bit more complex?
This article also set forth that the American people at this point are less concerned with "social" issues such as these and the war than they are with the economy. Which again goes to prove just how far off the mainstream media are, and wonder just who is conducting and what segment of the population are being used for their polls.
The war has much to do with the economy, and joblessness and homeless in this country. After all, the costs for continuing this war for now nine long years has escalated and added to our deficit far more than even those discretionary expenditures for those bridges to nowhere. And will so for decades in all the veterans benefits and costs that will be needed for the next, oh say, fifty to sixty years.
A decision such as this should not be made by a federal or state judge, but as a policy decision, especially in times of war.
I believe this goes along the lines of all those policies regarding "fraternization" while serving, and also during times of war. I mean, just how much time do most of those serving really have for developing romantic attachments?
Maybe we need to rethink this entire "standing army" concept, or leave those decisions to those who are more aware of the ramifications. And again, just how many gays are actually serving, is what I would like to know, since it would seem that the majority of gay individuals are not exactly also supportive of this ongoing war either at this point to begin with, at least from my experience.
So just how many really are enlisting, and I would not hesitate to guess, not many and many of those that are or have, don't seem to be those which continue to push this agenda, but the civilian activists that somehow perceive that in keeping such a fundamentally personal issue private is denying them their "rights." But "rights" to what, I'd like to know.
Solicit?
The courts do seem to be continuing to accept cases and extending standing to "disinterested" parties more and more, including those now brought on behalf of "foreigner's" rights somehow in this country, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights ("We the People of the United States...for US and OUR posterity"), or using some perceived injustice or disenfranchised individual on behalf of a special interest group in order to feed the legal industry most of all under those federal statutes that provide for the payment of legal fees, at the taxpayer's expense, for any and all actions which can in any way be perceived as a "civil rights" case.
Your sexual preference is a "civil right," but while serving in the military (which is not a "civil" organization, in more ways than one, it would appear as of late) is not.
The military and its members are fighters, after all, not lovers.
Just think of the complications of a totally gay and separate unit with such a policy, and the additional questions that would need to be asked in such an event for at least housing purposes.
For example, "What are your tendencies, "butch" or "queen?"
California and its judiciary does it again, and no wonder there continues to be more at least generational Americans leaving that state, than new residents.
I just wonder whether they also just might work, through their political connections, for the AP which more and more does tend to focus on sensationalize, explosive and exploitive politically charged journalism and their "polls" each and every decade, rather than even questioning a military policy being addressed in a civilian court outside any true Constitutional basis or intent of those founders whatsoever.
Who would most likely hold that gays are more than welcome to serve in the military and volunteer army to protect the homeland if it is their desire.
But disclose they would have no time for dating, and if that was their objective than maybe the career military or a foreign engagement during a time of war wouldn't suit their primary or the military's ultimate aims.
Showing posts with label judiciary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judiciary. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Questions Surrounding Proposition 8's Perry vs. Schwartzenegger
It was announced in the mainstream media that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (don't you just love that court!) has stayed resumption of the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex individuals in California pending the outcome of appeals with respect to the challenge brought over the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, a referendum and initiative passed by the California voters last year (although brought by an organization by the name of "Protect Marriage," which solicits contributions from individuals in order to continue to defend in this action nation-wide, and on whose website very little information is available in just who and what "Protect Marriage" is).
Except that it does include an "educational" component to their organization, which would lead this writer to believe that it also then just may be getting federal grant monies for its existence in addition to those solicited donations.
What truly has been interesting is the legal shenanigans going on in this case, which was filed apparently as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," and not "Perry vs. the State of California" since it was, after all, a state initiative passed by the California voters and thus the proper defendants in the case would be the State itself, and not Governor Schwarzenegger as merely the Governor at the present time.
What is also interesting is that both the Governor and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend in this case on the grounds that they believe that gay marriages should be afforded in California, their personal opinions which really have no grounding in either California, or the U.S. Constitution at all.
Since, of course, marriage and its definition is grounded in the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based at its signing, and marriage is an "institution" under the common law and has been for literally thousands of years in its definition as between two opposite sex individuals for the purposes of procreation, property ownership and inheritance purposes in a purely legal sense, and in a spiritual sense, a pledge of fidelity and love between the couple and God, who is pretty much on record in both the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in just what his definition of marriage was and is in a spiritual sense.
The fact that Attorney General Brown has refused to defend in the action speaks volumes in his understanding of his powers and duties of office.
Apparently, his oath meant little as apparently did the Governor's.
There is provision, after all, for domestic and civil unions in California's statutes prior to this movement, and also legal instruments that can be bought at the local bookstores in the form of powers of attorney and the like for any and all other matters. You can, after all, leave your property to your next door neighbor or even your dog as has been the case with some eccentrics, not to mention your spouse, companion, friend, children or domestic partner with a simple will, or disinherit them if that is also your wish.
The standing issue was addressed by the 9th Circuit even in this ruling, although from the wrong angle, it appears, questioning instead of the wrong "parties of interest" to the matter the standing of this group, Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the proposition, to defend.
It appears maybe that may be the reason it was brought incorrectly to begin with - to use the standing issue as one in order to murky the waters, and force also the Governor and Attorney General to show their true colors, and set this case then up for an eventual challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court again inappropriately as not brought by the true parties in interest as the Constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (rather than common law "institution" which did exist in its common law form at its signing).
A court that hasn't recognized the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based for literally decades, and never more so than in the last thirty in many respects, including using foreign jurisdictional law now even for some of its renderings rather than American jurisprudence, and giving more and more "rights" to "corporate" entities, including the government itself, above those of the citizenry with respect to Bill of Rights issues in so many matters it is incredible.
I hope that before it reaches that point it is corrected to Perry vs. State of California, otherwise it would appear that any decision rendered in this matter will be null and void in either case. Since it truly isn't naming the "parties in interest" and in so NOT doing, has made the defense in this matter one in which the government appears to be facilitating this case also in order to set a nation-wide precedent with this legal technicality their scapegoat against really treason in this smoke and mirrors game.
And with the complement of the "progressively" unAmerican Supreme Court with these last several appointments particularly ones in which during those Senate hearings little questioning had to do with those justices understanding of just where their powers end with respect to Constitutional interpretation, and under what "standard" they are to reach their opinions (not judicial "case precedent" but with the intent of the framers ever present in Bill of Rights issues fundamentally, and don't think the mention of extending or expanding the definition of marriage was even entertained in their minds as a Bill of Rights "inalienable" right and outside governmental authority really, to begin with as "personal" relationships were intended to be).
The 16th again and its ramifications again rears its ugly head on this issue also, which would never be the case if the "intent" for taxation in this nation was reinstituted to its Constitutional intent.
Since there were gays back in '76 and there were marriages also, it would appear to this American Constitution believer that in such a Constitutional challenge on the "right" to marry and definition of marriage itself, which is what this case really boils down to, this would be a no-brainer.
But look for an excuse such as "good public policy" or "freedom of association" (assembly) to be their underlying rationale, in order to support that state, and the legal community at large, for another "stimulus" at the true cost of freedom and the expense of the public at large.
Then look for the medical community to get into the act mandating AIDS testing prior to issuing those licenses, so that the state (and feds in this health care reform national database that was hidden in those bills) then has a record of any and all individuals who are HIV positive, at the stroke of a keyboard, or mandate HIV treatment prior to the issuance of those licenses.
I don't believe the activist gay community has any idea how they are being used over a fundamental right to privacy of their personal lives and sexual preferences, until it hits them in about five years down the road, brought by another government funded legal defense or civil rights group, as this massive politically brought case and its defense clearly is using those licenses for more taxation and profit for either the government, or its select global industries. And "science and technology" seems to be their baby at the present time most of all.
Those domestic relations lawyers looking forward to those fees for the divorces and pre-nups are also licking their chops right about now, and the hotel, tourism and wedding planning industries in that state.
Not to mention the number of "new jobs" for judges and lawyers this will also create, for those domestic relations courts, and the county justices of the peace that will now also be needed to increase those county coffers at "for profit" prices for those licenses, although with California continuing to expand its budgets and cry poverty at the same time it continues to bankrupt its citizenry.
Schwarzenegger is, after all, not simply an avowed "capitalist" for California in for profit governmental public/private partnerships, but a personal one too.
Wonder how much he has invested in the hotel, resort and medical industries personally that just might profit from his personal, rather than Constitutional, views? Or Attorney General Brown, who has his eye on heading that state after Mr. Scwarzenegger steps down, from all reports.
If it is mandated that insurers must cover gay individuals and their domestic partners equally with herterosexual individuals without taking "risk" into consideration, or the high cost of those in vitro and other alternative reproductive costs that are "class" distinctive and are instead spread amongst the pool of policy holders, it appears that the global corporatists have found another way to "socialize" the costs of health care for higher risk groups to all - so just watch the costs of those policies skyrocket, instead of getting more affordable as the Obama Administration touted during that farce of a Health Care Reforem legislation.
I guess the costs and profits for all those drug manufacturers for this "new" disease treating the symptoms hasn't been enough, since according to my research the patent on inferon and some of those other expensive drugs is scheduled to expire in 2013, just prior to when the new mandates for health care for all begins.
This is a disease, after all, that has become an industry in and of itself along with breast cancer "awareness" and those recommended tests and races have brought in a bundle to the medical community for "reasearch", although few strides in really preventing or curing those diseases has been in sight.
I would question whether the instances of new cases of breeast cancer, as with AIDS, are going up or if some of these "treatments" themselves are resulting in new cases, such as annual invasive radioactive breast x-rays, and live virus injections and treatments.
Hello, gay community, it just might be that you are being had.
Except that it does include an "educational" component to their organization, which would lead this writer to believe that it also then just may be getting federal grant monies for its existence in addition to those solicited donations.
What truly has been interesting is the legal shenanigans going on in this case, which was filed apparently as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," and not "Perry vs. the State of California" since it was, after all, a state initiative passed by the California voters and thus the proper defendants in the case would be the State itself, and not Governor Schwarzenegger as merely the Governor at the present time.
What is also interesting is that both the Governor and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend in this case on the grounds that they believe that gay marriages should be afforded in California, their personal opinions which really have no grounding in either California, or the U.S. Constitution at all.
Since, of course, marriage and its definition is grounded in the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based at its signing, and marriage is an "institution" under the common law and has been for literally thousands of years in its definition as between two opposite sex individuals for the purposes of procreation, property ownership and inheritance purposes in a purely legal sense, and in a spiritual sense, a pledge of fidelity and love between the couple and God, who is pretty much on record in both the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in just what his definition of marriage was and is in a spiritual sense.
The fact that Attorney General Brown has refused to defend in the action speaks volumes in his understanding of his powers and duties of office.
Apparently, his oath meant little as apparently did the Governor's.
There is provision, after all, for domestic and civil unions in California's statutes prior to this movement, and also legal instruments that can be bought at the local bookstores in the form of powers of attorney and the like for any and all other matters. You can, after all, leave your property to your next door neighbor or even your dog as has been the case with some eccentrics, not to mention your spouse, companion, friend, children or domestic partner with a simple will, or disinherit them if that is also your wish.
The standing issue was addressed by the 9th Circuit even in this ruling, although from the wrong angle, it appears, questioning instead of the wrong "parties of interest" to the matter the standing of this group, Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the proposition, to defend.
It appears maybe that may be the reason it was brought incorrectly to begin with - to use the standing issue as one in order to murky the waters, and force also the Governor and Attorney General to show their true colors, and set this case then up for an eventual challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court again inappropriately as not brought by the true parties in interest as the Constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (rather than common law "institution" which did exist in its common law form at its signing).
A court that hasn't recognized the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based for literally decades, and never more so than in the last thirty in many respects, including using foreign jurisdictional law now even for some of its renderings rather than American jurisprudence, and giving more and more "rights" to "corporate" entities, including the government itself, above those of the citizenry with respect to Bill of Rights issues in so many matters it is incredible.
I hope that before it reaches that point it is corrected to Perry vs. State of California, otherwise it would appear that any decision rendered in this matter will be null and void in either case. Since it truly isn't naming the "parties in interest" and in so NOT doing, has made the defense in this matter one in which the government appears to be facilitating this case also in order to set a nation-wide precedent with this legal technicality their scapegoat against really treason in this smoke and mirrors game.
And with the complement of the "progressively" unAmerican Supreme Court with these last several appointments particularly ones in which during those Senate hearings little questioning had to do with those justices understanding of just where their powers end with respect to Constitutional interpretation, and under what "standard" they are to reach their opinions (not judicial "case precedent" but with the intent of the framers ever present in Bill of Rights issues fundamentally, and don't think the mention of extending or expanding the definition of marriage was even entertained in their minds as a Bill of Rights "inalienable" right and outside governmental authority really, to begin with as "personal" relationships were intended to be).
The 16th again and its ramifications again rears its ugly head on this issue also, which would never be the case if the "intent" for taxation in this nation was reinstituted to its Constitutional intent.
Since there were gays back in '76 and there were marriages also, it would appear to this American Constitution believer that in such a Constitutional challenge on the "right" to marry and definition of marriage itself, which is what this case really boils down to, this would be a no-brainer.
But look for an excuse such as "good public policy" or "freedom of association" (assembly) to be their underlying rationale, in order to support that state, and the legal community at large, for another "stimulus" at the true cost of freedom and the expense of the public at large.
Then look for the medical community to get into the act mandating AIDS testing prior to issuing those licenses, so that the state (and feds in this health care reform national database that was hidden in those bills) then has a record of any and all individuals who are HIV positive, at the stroke of a keyboard, or mandate HIV treatment prior to the issuance of those licenses.
I don't believe the activist gay community has any idea how they are being used over a fundamental right to privacy of their personal lives and sexual preferences, until it hits them in about five years down the road, brought by another government funded legal defense or civil rights group, as this massive politically brought case and its defense clearly is using those licenses for more taxation and profit for either the government, or its select global industries. And "science and technology" seems to be their baby at the present time most of all.
Those domestic relations lawyers looking forward to those fees for the divorces and pre-nups are also licking their chops right about now, and the hotel, tourism and wedding planning industries in that state.
Not to mention the number of "new jobs" for judges and lawyers this will also create, for those domestic relations courts, and the county justices of the peace that will now also be needed to increase those county coffers at "for profit" prices for those licenses, although with California continuing to expand its budgets and cry poverty at the same time it continues to bankrupt its citizenry.
Schwarzenegger is, after all, not simply an avowed "capitalist" for California in for profit governmental public/private partnerships, but a personal one too.
Wonder how much he has invested in the hotel, resort and medical industries personally that just might profit from his personal, rather than Constitutional, views? Or Attorney General Brown, who has his eye on heading that state after Mr. Scwarzenegger steps down, from all reports.
If it is mandated that insurers must cover gay individuals and their domestic partners equally with herterosexual individuals without taking "risk" into consideration, or the high cost of those in vitro and other alternative reproductive costs that are "class" distinctive and are instead spread amongst the pool of policy holders, it appears that the global corporatists have found another way to "socialize" the costs of health care for higher risk groups to all - so just watch the costs of those policies skyrocket, instead of getting more affordable as the Obama Administration touted during that farce of a Health Care Reforem legislation.
I guess the costs and profits for all those drug manufacturers for this "new" disease treating the symptoms hasn't been enough, since according to my research the patent on inferon and some of those other expensive drugs is scheduled to expire in 2013, just prior to when the new mandates for health care for all begins.
This is a disease, after all, that has become an industry in and of itself along with breast cancer "awareness" and those recommended tests and races have brought in a bundle to the medical community for "reasearch", although few strides in really preventing or curing those diseases has been in sight.
I would question whether the instances of new cases of breeast cancer, as with AIDS, are going up or if some of these "treatments" themselves are resulting in new cases, such as annual invasive radioactive breast x-rays, and live virus injections and treatments.
Hello, gay community, it just might be that you are being had.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
NeoCon Lindsay Graham To Back Sotomayor Appointment
Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina, has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.
Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.
Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.
I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.
It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.
Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.
So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.
The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.
Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.
And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.
The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.
Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.
Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.
The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.
Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.
Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.
I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.
It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.
Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.
So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.
The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.
Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.
And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.
The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.
Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.
Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.
The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sotomayor On Applying The Law
Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.
These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."
She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?
It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.
With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.
In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.
Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.
And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.
Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.
For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.
I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.
And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.
As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.
I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.
I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.
I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.
It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.
She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."
And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.
These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."
She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?
It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.
With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.
In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.
Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.
And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.
Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.
For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.
I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.
And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.
As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.
I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.
I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.
I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.
It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.
She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."
And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Governmental Overkill: Woman Fined 1.9 Million For "Pirated" Works
CNN reported another incidence of corporate/governmental overkill now going on in our nation with respect to the recording industry's pursuit of any and all Americans that download songs or sounds without paying for them from the internet.
Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes.
And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works.
Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions.
That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.
The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court. It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.
And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.
There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion. This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.
Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000. "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.
There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity. So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.
Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.
It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution. Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently.
I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.
True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment.
You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.
If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.
And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.
More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything.
This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.
Unbelievable.
Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.
We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.
That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders. And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes.
And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works.
Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions.
That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.
The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court. It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.
And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.
There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion. This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.
Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000. "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.
There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity. So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.
Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.
It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution. Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently.
I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.
True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment.
You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.
If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.
And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.
More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything.
This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.
Unbelievable.
Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.
We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.
That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders. And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor Vows To Rule According To The Law: But Which?
Today Sonia Sotomayor had her first "meet and greet" with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over her potential confirmation as the first Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice.
A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.
She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended.
This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary, which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution
The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing. And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less Constitutional, by the decade.
And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.
For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.
"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.
My question is, which "law" is she referring to? Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.
Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?
Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?
Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?
Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.
So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various press releases.
But I doubt it. In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."
I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."
The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449
A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.
She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended.
This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary, which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution
The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing. And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less Constitutional, by the decade.
And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.
For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.
"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.
My question is, which "law" is she referring to? Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.
Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?
Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?
Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?
Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.
So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various press releases.
But I doubt it. In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."
I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."
The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
