Archive for the Supreme Court Category

Why Johnny And Roger? (April 30, 2012)

Posted in Citizens United Decision, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Judges, Perjury, Song Reference, Supreme Court on April 30, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

1          “And not Jon and Lloyd.”

2          “Because the American legal system is fundamentally corrupt?  Is that the answer.”

1          “The jury selection in the Roger Clemens retrial began a fortnight ago.  Because it was in federal district court, no cameras are allowed in the court room.”

2          “Better to keep everything as hidden from the public eye as possible.”

1          “Roger may have lied under oath, but it is a noble American pursuit pursued by Supreme Court nominees who appear before the Senate.”

2          “The Supreme Court Justices who hurl balls and strikes rather than call balls and strikes.”

1          “Johnny Reid Edwards may have played some games with campaign contributions, but the Five Lobbyists on the Supreme Court basically decreed that anything goes in the campaign arena.”

2          “And Johnny is indicted and Jonny Corzine is running free.”

1          “And Lloyd Blankfein continues to inflict violence on the world.”

2          “And now we learn again that Justice Department officials who were aware that flawed forensic work may have contributed to the convictions of potentially innocent individuals fetched another cup of coffee and counted the days until their retirement.”

1          “Are courts expected to exhibit a modicum of integrity or at some point are they illegitimate.”

. . .

[See http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/convicted-defendants-left-uninformed-of-forensic-flaws-found-by-justice-dept/2012/04/16/gIQAWTcgMT_story.html]

[See the "e-ssays" titled "Perjury, The American Way (February 20, 2006)," "Balls and Strikes and Perjury: America’s Pastimes (August 23, 2010)," and "Losing Faith: MF Global and Kodak (January 9, 2012)."]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Prosecute the prosecutors; prosecute the judges

“Through this world I’ve wandered I’ve seen lots of funny men / Some rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.”

“The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd” by Woody Guthrie (c) 1958 (renewed) Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc.

SCOTUS on TV: “They Might Not Be Such Bastards” (March 26, 2012)

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Health Care, Journalism, Judges, Newspapers, O'Bama, Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

C1          “The Supremes are hearing oral argument on ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ this week.  The Supremes get free health care for life and get to decide whether ordinary Americans get health care.  They don’t get it.”

C2          “Are they listening or just sitting there allowing the barristers to babble.  Thomas is asleep.”

C1          “Or are they just blow harding to hear themselves blow hard.   ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ is about personal responsibility and now the blow hards are contending that it impinges on personal freedom.  Cameras in the court room would provide some insight.”

C2          “Everyone might play for the camera.”

C1          “The lawyers and the Justices.  They can be so churlish and childish.”

C2          “Or arrogant bastards.  I was in the lawyer’s line last December minding my own business and listening to the other conversations.  She observed that the cameras likely would change everyone’s behavior.  And she matter-of-factly observed that the cameras might make the Justices behave more civilly.  ‘They might not be such bastards,’ she opined politely.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “Breaking News: Supreme Court Elects To Decide 2012 Presidential Election (January 16, 2012)”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

SCOTUS – The ultimate Reality Television?

Who owns the courts?

If you’re not an intellectual, at least be intellectually honest.

At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012)

Posted in Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, First Amendment, Judges, Less Government Regulation Series, Military, Supreme Court on February 27, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

O          “Some guys who spent their days folding diapers at Fort Dix are proclaiming that they single-handedly won World War II.”

P          “And good old Congress comes to the rescue and imposes some more government regulations.  Congress again dictated that the government must decide and provided for more buffoons to be sent to prison at my expense.  The issue is so clear and simple.  We could agree to direct the government to make bumbling efforts to criminalize the goonery or we could vest individuals with the responsibility to determine the truth.”

O          “The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is a misnomer.  Those in the service fought valorously for the First Amendment of 1791 not some shallow rah-rah legislation.  Curious that the government and business are in business to lie, yet we want the government to come in and prosecute someone who is not telling the truth and then deny that person his or her liberty.”

P          “The government already fulfills its role without the additional legislation and imposition on our First Amendment guarantees.  Look at the Department of Defense Form DD 214 prepared at government expense that provides the actual information about a person’s military service and awards.  The Court should take notice of the fact that little is private today particularly one’s military service from his or her first day as a private.  Perhaps the government could expunge the social security numbers and publish all DD 214s upon retirement.”

O          “Most of these scoundrels and fools are insecure and desperate but not criminal.  What if the Court simply issued a two word decision:  ‘First Amendment.’”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

First Amendment Rules

The Stolen Valor Act – steals honor and denies rights

Proposition H8 And The Enduring Appeal Of Fear And Hate (February 13, 2012)

Posted in Abortion, Antitrust, Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Gay Politics, Judges, Less Government Regulation Series, Miscegenation, Supreme Court on February 13, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

K          “In the early 1960s, a constitutional law textbook included a lengthy chapter collecting pivotal decisions challenging Jim Crow laws.  A library in this state, a grammar school in that state, a swimming pool in this state, a drinking fountain in that state.  The campaign was undertaken one institution, one jurisdiction, one decision at a time.  There were successes; there were failures; there were more successes than failures.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) changed the ground rules.  These outdated cases are of interest to historians today; they are moot asides for lawyers.  The whole chapter was expunged and a new chapter unfolded to detail the legal dispute du jour.”

J          “The unfolding chapter is reading like the old one.  America is gasping its way through the same spasms regarding gay marriages and gay rights.  The long-run outcome is clear, but the path is rocky.  Gay marriages and gay rights will be the norm and the law in thirty years.”

K          “Gay rights are the civil rights issue of this generation.  Instead of passing laws to protect civil rights such as the CRA, however, Congress passes unconstitutional screeds such as the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DoMA).  Perverse group, the gang that legislates congress.”

J          “In thirty years, the kids will dismiss the dispute as ‘weird’ or ‘bizarre’ or whatever the patois is at the time.  Until then, prejudice, hate and fear drives the fight.  The Ninth Circuit decision is another step in the long slog.  And now the outcome likely turns on Kennedy.  Someone observed that Kennedy observed that his gay clerks were . . . human.  He decided that they should be treated that way.”

K          “In Lawrence v. Texas.  Contrast the development of the law regarding gay rights with the development of the law involving abortion.  Last month marked thirty-nine years since the Supreme Court addressed abortion in Roe v. Wade.  Curious circumstances and decision.  The matter was decided not by the Warren Court but by the Burger Court.  Warren retired to go bass fishing or something in 1969.  The seven vote majority opinion was written by a Republican-appointed Justice (Blackmun) and was joined by three Nixon appointees (Burger, Powell, Blackmun), two Eisenhower (Stewart, Brennan), one FDR (Douglas), and one LBJ (Marshall) appointees.  Even with no Democratic-appointed justices at all, Roe would have become the law of the land solely on the votes of Republican-appointed justices.”

J          “Even with a clear precedent, challenges to abortion will still be caroming around the courts in thirty years.  Gay rights will be resolved.”

K          “We would all be better off if the government got out of the bedroom.”

. . .

[See the Ninth Circuit decision in Perry v. Brown at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf.]

[See the “e-ssay” titled Less Government Regulation Series: Love and Marriage (May 19, 2008).]

[See the “e-ssay” titled Fire Your Attorney General (November 7, 2011) and review http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/mortgage-settlement-as-attorney-general-sellout-deal-is-not-done-and-final-version-guaranteed-to-be-worse-than-advertised.html.  The bankers murdered the body politic (and economic) with malice aforethought and all we could offer them is an overdue book fine.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships.  Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.  The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

Let freedom ring; let love rule

Good to have loved and lost; better to have loved and won

Happy Valentine’s Day

Move To Amend: Occupy The Courts (January 23, 2012)

Posted in Citizens United Decision, Courts, Move To Amend, Occupy Movement, Supreme Court, Vietnam on January 23, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

C1          “Friday was a formal ‘Conference Day’ for the Supremes.  I doubt they conferred and expressed doubts about their decision.”

C2          “Citizens United is uniting citizens.”

C1          “These rallies unite the old Vietnam War protest crowd and the kids who recently were able to drink legally.”

C2          “The gathering of the gray hairs and the long hairs.  I looked around and wondered what the kids of the Vietnam crowd were doing on an overcast day.  And what the parents of the protesting kids were doing.” 

C1          “Working, if they are lucky.  To be have a job and get time off is a rarity today.  You have to hand it to the Supreme Court Police who handled the situation judiciously.”

C2          “The right presence and not a riot presence.  Wearing their blue uniforms and regular hats and not sporting the black Darth Vader riot gear, riot shields and riot clubs was a calming influence.”

C1          “Another day at the office.  The ceremonial barrier ringing the stairs was well positioned to allow the public to assemble and the police to establish a reasonable buffer.”

C2          “That ‘three percent’ is always there and made up what . . . about three percent of the crowd?  The dozen kids who trashed some of the barriers and advanced up the stairs did not advance the cause.  I understand their outrage, yet replacing the broken barriers will require public resources that could be used to provide fencing around a playground.”

C1          “When the group knocked down the barrier and moved up the steps of the Court, the Supreme Court Police had to make a quick decision.  Allowing the group to advance up three steps was about as much real estate as they could reasonably yield.”     

C2          “The violence done inside the Court does not justify or excuse the destruction done outside.  There is something about the right to peaceably assemble.”

C1          “No mace, no beatings, no arrests.  Nice touch.”

C2          “However, there may come a time when it will be necessary for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country and to storm the ramparts.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled “Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010) and “Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010).”]

[See “www.movetoamend.org.”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do courts exist for the benefit of judges and corporations or for the benefit of the people?

When money speaks, the Truth is silent.

The system is not broken.  It is fixed.

Negroes are not citizens.  Dred Scott (1857) (mooted by the 14th Amendment); Corporations are persons.  Citizens United (2010) (mooted by the 28th Amendment?)

I won’t believe that a corporation is a person until Texas executes one.

Breaking News: Supreme Court Elects To Decide 2012 Presidential Election (January 16, 2012)

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Elections, Health Care, O'Bama, Presidency, Supreme Court on January 16, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

L1          “It really is so much easier.”

L2          “And they are so smart.  . . . .  Right.”

L1          “The outspoken opponents of judicial activism are awfully active judicially.”

L2          “And their actions and decisions are actively awful.”

L1          “In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it has the authority to appoint the President.”

L2          “Nothing is inconceivable today.  Laugh at me if you will, but I still maintain that allowing the Supremes to select the President is an ill-advised practice and a terrible precedent.”

L1          “The Five Lobbyists – our friends Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito – announced that they will decide who wins the Presidency in 2012.  They will issue their decision in the context of the health care hullaballoo.”

L2          “Seems so.  When they review the constitutionality of ‘Romney – O’Bama Care,’ they may be confused by Romney’s ever changing positions.”

L1          “From what I hear, first Romney is in favor of Romney Care and then against Romney Care and then in favor and then against and then in favor and then against and then in favor.”

L2          “And then against.  I’m telling you, he is giving flip-flopping a bad name.”

L1          “What if the Five Lobbyists uphold ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ and don’t taint the campaign?”   

L2          “You mean because ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ is constitutional, albeit not the most sound public policy.”

L1          “That really should be a relevant consideration.  At least I think so.”

L2          “When do you think they will issue their decision?”

L1          “June.  Before heading off to the beach.”

L2          “They would need to hijack another case to select the President.”

L1          “They come back from the beach in October and could distort any old case lying around to declare the winner in November.”

L2          “I wouldn’t put it past them.”

. . .

[MLK – getting his words right is right and a nice birthday present.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Who says one vote does not matter?  5-4 was enough

The SCOTUS determining the POTUS is decidedly FUBAR

Are Courts Irrelevant? Are Courts Illegitimate? (October 3, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Law, Movie Reference, Pensions, Supreme Court on October 3, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

a          “The Supremes open the doors today.”

b          “Didn’t His Excellency Chief Justice John G. Roberts close the doors to the Supreme Court years ago.”

a          “He did.  They will let themselves in to resume their part-time jobs receiving full-time pay and lifetime tenure via a side door, the service entrance if you will.”

b          “That is the gig of a lifetime.”

a          “The Supremes have not only closed the doors to the Court, they are closing the doors on the American dream.”

. . .  

a          “Hard to dispute that courts exist to incarcerate the underclass and to insulate the ruling class from responsibility.  That isn’t all bad, I guess.  Seems to depend on whether you have class.”

b          “Courts exist to give the pretence of the peaceful resolution of disputes and thereby to keep the masses from rioting.”

. . .

a          “Rating the characteristic judicial attributes is a close call.  Some days it is arrogance, other days it is anger.  It is always a close competition – anger, arrogance, arrogance, anger.” 

b          “I have endured many a nasty temper but few a calm judicial temperament.  Nothing will ruin a morning like appearing before a judge who is mired in a sterile marriage and fulminating over a fertile daughter.  He can use the bench as a bully pulpit for his undigested anger.”

a          “Or she for hers.”

b          “Or she for hers.  Some of these cats are as angry as a fer-de-lance with a hangnail.”

. . .

a          “Some days the judges sport a sourcaustic attitude, other days a condescending tone.  It is always a close competition – sourcaustic, condescension, sourcaustic, condescension.”

b          “I have collected court decisions in a file over the last few years.  The ‘Festschrift of Fear and Anger’ is in galley proofs.” 

. . .

a          “We equip police with batons and judges with gavels.  Both are used to beat.  There must be something in the fabric of the black moo-moo that transforms a person on the bench.”

b          “With increasingly few exceptions, judges are little more than tedious technicians and boorish bureaucrats reaching tendentious decisions.”

a          “Respect is an admixture of admiration and fear.  I don’t admire our judges; I do fear them.”

b          “They are not serving a useful function, yet they consume tremendous resources and waste a tremendous opportunity.  I have increasingly less use for them, yet they are drawing a regular paycheck and will draw a pension and do everything while on the bench to protect their paycheck and pension.”

 . . .

a          “The wrong lawyers are securing judgeships.  The wrong persons are obtaining political office.  Any attempt to reform the legal system must rely on the same raw material.  There is not much there.”

b          “Nothing like what I thought in law school.”

a          “What’s happened?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “On Respect, Fear, Admiration and Irreverence (December 17, 2007)” and the "e-ssay” titled “Congress Should Increase Congressional and Judicial Pay; Shareholders Should Reduce CEO/CFO/COO Pay (March 5, 2007)” written at a time when the courts seemed to appear to offer the possibility of being part of the solution.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Judge = FePb

Laws are not etched in stone today, they are concocted with an Etch A Sketch (R)

“. . . And Justice For All” movie with Al Pacino (1979) 

Carefully Courting “Romney – O’Bama Care” Through The Courts (August 15, 2011)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Constitution, Crime/Punishment, Health Care, Kleptocracy, Law, O'Bama, Supreme Court on August 15, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

Y          “I don’t really like it either.  But it is constitutional, isn’t it?”

X          “Yup.  No big deal, really.  The Constitution does not create a likeability test.  The Constitution establishes a constitutional test.  Governments have been requiring individuals to acquire automobile and other insurance and to undertake duties for decades without whining.  No one opts out of fire protection and thus we all pay for it.  If each of us is left to obtain private fire insurance, all of us must be compelled to obtain and pay for fire insurance.  At its core, health insurance policy clearly involves interstate commerce.”

Y          “It really is about personal liberty and property.  If you don’t have health coverage, I must pay for your health coverage because other laws not challenged as unconstitutional mandate that you receive health care.  Making me pay restrains my liberty and deprives me of my property.  And you know me, a proud taxpayer.  Why all the fuss?  And why all the rampant litigation?”

X          “Someone observed that we are dealing with judges trained in American law schools who want to play legislator without running for the legislature.  More judicial arrogance.  More judicial activism.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

- 11 + 6 = 5:  The Eleventh Circuit says NO*; the Sixth Circuit says YES; the Five Supremes will enact health care policy

A 207 page decision?  Not even 207 words are required.

What are all the state attorneys general doing pursuing the legal challenge to Romney-O’Bama Care while capitulating to the Big Banks and surrendering the major legal issues?

There is no law, there is only ideology

I hope laughter is the best medicine – it is all I can afford

Walmart’s Classy Action (April 11, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Economics, Monopoly, Supreme Court on April 11, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

E          “It keeps getting more surreal.  Walmart whined all the way to the Supreme Court recently that the proposed class of individuals joined in the discrimination law against it is too big.”

F          “So Walmart promotes judicial activism?”

E          “Or is it an admission by Walmart that Walmart is too big?  Walmart could divest itself of a few of its divisions.  Or enter into a ‘consent decree’ with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and down size.”

F          “Is a ‘consent decree’ one of those legal things that allows an entity to maintain that it did not do anything wrong in the past and it agrees not to do it ever again in the future.”

E          “That’s the animal.  A female spokeswoman with Walmart stated that she never experienced any discrimination while working her way through the Walmart hierarchy.”

F          “But she is not a proposed member of the class?”

E          “Nope.”

F          “What’s the problem?  Seems fair that she is not part of the class.  Large companies with large numbers of employees may have large classes.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Large is good?

Radiation is democratic and dismayingly indifferent

In Sexy Opinion, Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment (March 7, 2011)

Posted in First Amendment, Journalism, Law, Newspapers, Supreme Court on March 7, 2011 by e-ssay.org

Torn from today’s headlines:

A          “Justices Rule For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals” also reported as “High Court Rules For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals”  The National Public Radio

B          “Justices Rule For Protestors At Military Funerals”  The New York Times

C          “Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Protects Church’s Right To Picket Funerals”  The Washington Post

D          “Supreme Court Sides With Churchgoers Who Picketed Military Funeral”  The Los Angeles Times

E          “Supreme Court Says Anti-Gay Protestors Have A Right To Demonstrate At Military Funerals”  The Chicago Tribune

F          “First Amendment Protects ‘Hurtful’ Speech, Court Says”  The Wall Street Journal

What is The most correct answer?  F

. . .

G          “Sexy headlines sell.”

H          “Didn’t the Supreme Court simply affirm the First Amendment?”

G          “Exactly.  However, if a sexy headline attracts more readers, go for it.  We need people to read.  And think.  And support the newspaper.”

H          “There are winners and there are losers which may be what the public really is interested in tracking.”

G          “Perhaps the decisions should be posted in the Sports section of the newspaper.”

H          “Judges often make result oriented decisions.  They decide who should win and then spin the facts and law to make the outcome appear to the reader to be a fait accompli and beyond reasonable dispute.”

G          “In this case, the Justices looked at the law.  They acknowledge the hate that motivates the speakers and the hateful message they deliver and reaffirm the fundamental right.  Every attempt to formulate an exception undermines the most important Amendment.”

H          “I read that Democratic and Republicans leaders of the Senate and a few dozen members of Congress filed a brief on behalf of the family.  They endured the vile and evil actions and statements of the protestors.  Can’t they just go away.”

G          “Law should be removed from the political process.  The Supreme Court redeemed itself again in this case and the case involving the Federal Communications Commission and AT&T.  The winds are blowing from a different direction.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” dated June 25, 2007 titled “The Supreme Court On Drugs” and dated January 25, 2010 titled "Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game" discussing bad hair days at the Court.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I get along with God just fine; it’s his fan clubs I can’t stand.

I’m a big fan of God; I’m not a big fan of his fanatics.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.