Archive for the Judges Category

The Federal Government, In Practice (September 15, 2014)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, CIA, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Congress, Courts, Federal Reserve, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, National Defense Authorization Act / FY 2012, Presidency, USA PATRIOT Act on September 15, 2014 by e-commentary.org

. . .

S          “So the Founding Fathers are blamed for and credited with many things.  Everyone agrees they were inspired by Montesquieu’s notion of the separation of powers providing for executive, legislative and judicial functions.  The division of labor and duties seems so clean and elegant in your civics class.  Yet, in practice, the process is so tainted and untidy.”

T          “In my class, I try to tidy up the mess.  I present this outline of the grand plan on the board to spark discussion:

Post 1787:          Theory:     Practice:

President            34%           30% (implement laws)
Congress             33%           60% (make laws)
Judiciary             33%           10% (interpret laws)
National Bank      0%             0% (inspire debate)

The judiciary was little more than an administrative agency with possibility until the Supreme Court developed the doctrine of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.  The political plate tectonics shifted and now we have:

2014:

President                             44% (determines most major domestic and foreign policy initiatives)

Congress                              21% (drives economic activities via substantial ad hoc spending largely for defense, interest and entitlements)

Judiciary                              35% (makes laws)

Federal Reserve                 33% (the private bank with the misleading name establishes monetary policy and directs fiscal policy by default because of Congressional grid lock and thus effectively runs the economy, with little public participation)

National Security State    39% (shapes domestic and foreign affairs via a motley and myriad montage of agencies, contractors, sub-contractors and others with little oversight)

S          “So sixty-eight percent of government policy is imposed by federal judges and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors/Big Bankers who are not elected.”

T          “The Founding Fathers are said to have been anti-democratic.  I know they would be surprised at what has emerged in practice in America.”

S          “So thirty-nine percent of domestic and foreign surveillance and activities are determined by unknown and unaccountable agents and operatives.”

T          “Who knows.”

. . .

S          “So we need to track the federal Debt which is now over 17 Trillion dollars and also the Federal Reserve Debt which is now over 4 Trillion dollars.”

T          “While you are at it, try to fathom the 100s of Trillions of dollars in derivatives that were never on the Founding Fathers’ radar and are off the public radar today.”

S          “That fraud will doom the Republic some day.”

. . .

S          “So the Big Bankers favor war because it is so profitable, so the large number of Big Bankers in power results in an over-production of war.”

T          “Accord.”

. . .

T          “Republicans want a powerful ‘unitary’ President when a Republican is in the White House and an effete President when a Democrat is in the White House.”

S          “And everyone agrees that federal judges are politicians in black robes.”

T          “Accord, young scholar.  See why this is so much fun.”

. . .

[T:  Teacher; S:  Student]

Bumper stickers of the week:

The Declaration of Independence is America’s Original Organic Poem.  The Constitution is America’s Owners’ Manual.  Signed on September 17, 1787.

There is no law.  There is only ideology.

Law Is Politics ; Politics Is Law (July 7, 2014)

Posted in Congress, Courts, Judges, Presidency, Supreme Court on July 7, 2014 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1          “Based on tradition, Justices are seated by seniority from the center outward on both sides.  Based on current practice, Justices should sit on each side of the political aisle.  The five Republicans should sit on the right wing and the four Democrats should sit on the left wing.”

. . .

L1          “The right wing majority of the Supreme Court reinvigorated its campaign to undermine abortion rights, fox hole by fox hole.”

L2          “They are sly as a fox about it.  When notes are later released, someone may discover that the left wing minority was either intimidated by the right wing or made a concession to the abortion opponents to avoid an even more dishonest opinion by logrolling their votes for less damaging language.”

L1          “Logrolling.  You have got to love it.  Politicians behaving like politicians.”

. . .

L1          “The right wing of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the two-part First Amendment test:  ‘1) Who is making the expression? and 2) What is being expressed?’  That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.”

L2          “The left wing may have used ‘Substantive Due Process’ to shape policy in the past.  The right wing is using the First Amendment to advance its political agenda and silence its critics.”

. . .

L2          “In some cultures, hypocrisy is the greatest crime.  The Supreme Court strikes down a reasonable 35-foot barrier between abortion protesters and those going into a facility after imposing a more than 200-foot buffer around the Court and enforcing it with the Court’s own private army paid for with public funds.”

L1          “What if protestors stood outside Scalia’s house and shouted that he is a ‘fibber’?”

. . .

L1          “The right wing of the Supreme Court underpins its decision on recess appointments on separation of powers doctrines and yet undermines the most fundamental separation of powers.  The Supreme Court – the judicial branch – defined and delineated legislative activities to undermine executive power.”

L2          “Would the Court have reached that decision if the President were a Republican.”

L1          “Maybe not.  Look in the footnotes of the decision for an exception for a Republican President.”

L2          “Look at Bush v. Gore for precedent.  Law is all politics today.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do gay corporations have the constitutional right to engage in mergers and acquisitions or merely civil unions?

There is no law; there is only ideology.

The Supreme Court – The Legislature on the east side of First Street

 

Profile In Cowardice Award (May 12, 2014)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Cyberactivities, Judges, On [Traits/Characteristics], Press/Media, Privacy, Society on May 12, 2014 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Brooksley Born and Sheila Bair courageously challenged the kleptocracy in America.  The Committee did not delay too long waiting to gauge their hipness or political correctness.  For good measure, they also awarded themselves the award in 2009.  Yet the award for 2014 is devoid of . . . courage.”

J          “And integrity and vision.  The Committee went craven this year and should receive a special Profile in Cravenness Award.  There is not a scintilla of doubt that Edward Snowden should have won hands down for standing up courageously this past year.”

K          “The Profile in Courage Award suffers from the same myopia as the awards for most Rhodes, some Pulitzers and the Nobel in E-con-omics.  The pool is constricted and confined at the outset to a small number recipients who can be counted on not to do or say anything really imaginative, creative or, with an award ostensibly celebrating courage, . . . courageous.”

J          “Failing to acknowledge true talent is a tremendous lost opportunity and only heightens cynicism.  Society is giving the wrong signals.  Only those connected need apply.”

K          “Those in power candidly admitted that Snowden did not go to the right schools or belong to the right clubs.  Those who make the decisions did not aspire to play squash or go yachting with him.”

. . .

J          “Those who criticize him for departing the United States fail to understand how much courage it took to take a stand in the face of the venal and vindictive federal criminal justice system in America.”

K          “What if the United States gave him asylum from the United States in the United States?  Strength in response to courage.  That will never happen in a nation debilitated by fear and motivated by hatred.”

J          “No matter how things stay the same, they stay the same.”

. . .

[See the article on the impact of political ideology on First Amendment decisions at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/us/politics/in-justices-votes-free-speech-often-means-speech-i-agree-with.html and the commentary at The Supreme Court On Drugs (June 25, 2007) (“The Court’s new First Amendment test is two-fold: 1) who is making the expression and 2) what is being expressed. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.”)]

[See the commentary on courage and truth at On Courage and Truth (March 17, 2008).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Pardon Edward Snowden

Free James Risen

Award James Hansen

Pusillanimity is bad form

Past Time: Exercising The “New Clear Option” (November 25, 2013)

Posted in Blue States / Red States, Civil War, Congress, Courts, Filibuster, Hypocrisy, Judges, Law, O'Bama, Presidency, Race on November 25, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

P          “It is about time.”

Q         “It’s way past time.”

P          “After stepping on your neck for years, they promise to step on your neck even harder if you try to wrench their foot off your neck.  It may be past time.”

Q         “They have used the logic embraced by the oppressed to oppress the patient and mature legislators.  It’s way past time.”

P          “Why not try to wrench their foot off, because when they get in power, they will be no less vindictive.  Now the oppressed legislators can compel the Senate to adhere to the constitutional duty to advise and consent rather than to delay and deny.”

Q         “Delaying legislation is a legislative prerogative.  The fight today is about denying executive branch appointments and undermining the executive branch.  At core, the fight is over separation of powers and the independence of the presidency.”

. . .

Q         “The war also is being fought over another branch – the courts and the judiciary.  Everyone in the know knows that there is no law, there is only ideology.  They are fighting over which ideologues get to don the wigs and dictate policy from the bench.”

P          “The vote is another skirmish in the continuing Civil War in America.”

Q        “That national experience provides historical perspective and ironic understatement.  Yet the war today isn’t civil.”

P          “At core, the clan of confederates is furious that a Black man is in the White House.”

. . .

[See the article titled http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html?hp&target=comments&_r=0#commentsContainer.]

[The benchmark price of .22s in November is not available because .22s are not available.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Mind your Ps and Qs

Immanentizing The Eschaton: Your Supreme Court And The Great Religious War (October 7, 2013)

Posted in Courts, First Monday In October, Immanentizing The Eschaton, Journalism, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Law, Newspapers, Supreme Court on October 7, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “The Supreme Court is engaged in a war between those who do not want to allow others to immanentize the eschaton and those who do want to allow others to immanentize the eschaton.”

L2        “I’ve said that many times.  The five rich White boys – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy – have already immanentized the eschaton and do not want anyone else except those like them to immanentize the eschaton.”

L1        “They are the Catholic Squad.”

L2        “And the four others also have immanentized the eschaton and yet do want everyone else to be able to immanentize the eschaton.”

L1        “Exactly.  They are the Jewish Squad.  Sotamayer developed concern for the health and welfare of others in her youth and did not immanentize the eschaton until adulthood, so she caucuses with the Jewish Squad.  The Jewish “Big E” Eschaton itself shapes the attitude toward its immanentization.  This life may not be a dress rehearsal.”

L2        “At core, the war at the Supreme Court really is a great religious war.”

. . .

L1        “They are out in left field honing their short game.”

L2        “Yet there are some Catholics who do want to allow others to immanentize the eschaton.  Just none of the current Supreme Beings.”

. . .

[See the other “e-ssays” in the “First Tuesday In October” series at https://e-commentary.org/category/first-monday-in-october/.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“In a recent series of Pushitzer prize winning articles, ‘El Diablo Times Bugle Leader Follower Post Pre Clarion’ reports that after each one took of them took the ultimate senior status and appeared before an even more Supreme Being, Johnny, Tony, Clarence, Sammy and Tony II each were sent straight to the mines with no health or safety apparatus, no lunch breaks, no overtime pay, no air conditioning and no law clerks – none – to bail them out.”

. . .

“Your surprise is not surprising.  We see that reaction all the time.”  “As you know, we did not even entertain the existence of such an ultimate reality.  And a room with a view and room service.  Just because we lead a virtuous life.”  “Indeed.  Really, it’s quite simple.  From our perspective, we look at how you live your life not what you profess to believe.  And perforce, as you know, we know everything.”

The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge: Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013)

Posted in Courts, Judges, Law, Politics, Republican Federal Judge Syndrome on September 23, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “They spend their Saturday nights dutifully licking and sealing envelopes containing missives condemning the government on behalf of the Republican Party, then get their coveted federal judgeship, and then spend their career granting every motion and request for relief filed by any government agency or large institution to the detriment of the public and/or an individual.”

L2        “The vexing ‘Paradox of the Republican Federal Judge.’  The Republican Federal Judge condemns the government to get there and represents the government once there.  Leaves you wondering if we could save money by appointing one person to be the U.S. Attorney General and the Federal Judge.”

L1        “In a dispute between an individual and the government, the Republican Federal Judge sides with the government.  In a dispute between an individual and the police, the Republican Federal Judge sides with the police.  In a dispute between an individual and an insurance company, the Republican Federal Judge sides with the insurance company.  In a dispute between an individual and a bank, the Republican Federal Judge sides with the bank.  In a dispute between an individual and a large corporation, the Republican Federal Judge sides with the large corporation.

L2        “I’ve seen that side in practice.”

. . .

L1        “He didn’t even sense the irony of his circumstance.  He supported and financed the Republican Senator who nominated the Republican Federal Judge appointed by the Republican President who could not wait for the Republican U.S. Attorney nominated by the Republican Senator and appointed by the Republican President to file a motion to deny relief to him and assess fees against him in his dispute with the gov-mint.”

L2        “Republican Federal Judge Syndrome.  So many of them are RFJS-Positive.  You can still blame it on the Democrats.”

. . .

[And then there are the exceptions.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/us/judge-blocks-north-dakota-abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0 and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/21evolution.html?pagewanted=all.]

[See the “e-ssay titled “You’re fired. Sue me.” (August 13, 2012).]

Bumper sticker of the week:

The law serves the wealthy and well-connected.  At every opportunity.

Has Scalia Gone Feral? (March 4, 2013)

Posted in Judges, Law, Move To Amend, Politics, Supreme Court on March 4, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

LS2      “Scalia has gone feral.”

LS1      “In the past, he demanded that the Court and the courts construe congressional language in a statute or provision literally – or as he defined literally – even in the face of clear contrary legislative intent and then took great delight in often perverse or unintended consequences or interpretations.”

LS2      “Now he is transforming the High Court into a MegaCongress to proclaim what he thinks animated Congress when it passed legislation.  In the face of crystal clear Congressional language and equally clear legislative intent regarding the Voting Rights Act, he appointed himself to second guess Congress and impose his personal prejudices on the populace.”

LS1      “At least he is blatant and blunt about it.  In his capacity as the Law Czar, however, he surely will not allow a person to bring and maintain a claim to instate the Move To Amend legislation on the ground that Congress would have passed the legislation except for the overweening influence of corporations.”

LS2      “That’s a new possibility.  Introduce a bill in the Supreme Court and let them pass judgment.  Two can play that game, yet only one person is allowed to play the game in the American legal game.”

. . .

LS2      “His great contribution to legal thinking is a grand sophistry.  ‘Originalism’ is an admixture of equal parts hypocrisy, dishonesty, perversity and absurdity.”

LS1      “And risibility, but it is a serious matter.  He is becoming even more grating and obnoxious.  Sarcasm is the first cousin of anger.  He is angry.  Ergo, he is sarcastic.”

LS2      “Sourcaustic.  In contemporary patois, Scalia is a bully of the worst kind.  A bully and a coward.  He uses the bench as a bully pulpit and then cowers behind the guards and security detail.”

LS1      “If someone asked him to step outside, Scalia would soil his panties and then curl up in a fetal position and cry for help.”

LS2      “He should take senior status and take over a hate radio show on Anger Mongering (AM) radio.”

LS1      “A festschrift of his proclamations does not require more than a few hundred words.  He is worth a footnote perhaps but much less than a chapter.  Someone, probably a former fawning law clerk, will spawn a 900 page idolatrous hagiographic piece.”

. . .

LS1/LS2  “He fails to realize that civility is not unconstitutional.”

. . .

[LS1 = Legal Scholar 1; . . . ]

[See the “e-ssays” titled One Gun Per White Adult Male? A Flintlock Musket? The “One Man, One Gun” Decision (October 4, 2010), Are Courts Irrelevant? Are Courts Illegitimate? (October 3, 2011) and The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative And Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012), three of the “First Monday in October” commentaries on the Supreme Court.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I don’t like some lawyers because some lawyers are not likable.

Do Supreme Court Justices get rabies shots?

Holding The Raters Accountable? (February 11, 2013)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Drones, First Amendment, Judges, Kleptocracy, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Rating Agencies on February 11, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

NNN     “So the government is going after the rating agency Standard & Poor’s for its grossly inflated ratings of toxic mortgage securities.”

OOO    “It is a start, yet they were among the bit players in the grand fraud.  Madoff made off with millions from connected characters who were not willing to let him off.  Corzine still has enough stroke as a former Senator to avoid prosecution.  The banksters and the brigands and the big players at the core got away with it and are getting away with it and no one in power does anything about it.”

. . .

NNN     “Some bonehead judges have looked for an excuse to let them off and resorted to the First Amendment.”

OOO    “The First Amendment is a limitation on government restrictions on speech not a source of individual rights, so a person does not have ‘First Amendment rights.’  The government did not restrict or regulate Standard & Poor’s speech in any way.  Standard & Poor’s is seeking to avoid prosecution for what it said not for what the government would not allow it to say.  That ends the First Amendment inquiry.”

NNN     “When S & P spoke, they lied and intended others to rely on the lies; they are culpable.  The government must start somewhere.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled Rating The Rating Agencies And The Courts That Should Berate Them: FFF (May 3, 2010) and other “e-ssays” under the Category titled “Rating Agencies.”]

[The charges against Standard & Poor’s are discussed at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/opinion/standard-poors-stands-accused.html?_r=0.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

FFF:       Rating Agencies

Judicial Activism: Rogue Republican Judges (January 28, 2013)

Posted in Congress, Constitution, Courts, Journalism, Judges, Law, Newspapers, Presidency on January 28, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

1          “I can’t say that I like it.”

2          “Me neither.  Smells bad.”

1          “Why is it that the first thing you recognize is that three Republican federal judges concocted the decision.”

2          “Because that is what Republican federal judges do.”

1          “Congress is dysfunctional and inoperative.  The President tries to do something rational consistent with limited Congressional action.  The Republican federal judges in the judicial branch step in and do their part to pummel and constrain the President and the executive branch.”

2          “Congress established the agencies and Congress authorized the funds and Congress appropriated the dollars and then a minority in Congress plays games to keep the President’s appointments from getting in the saddle to run the Congressionally-approved and authorized and appropriated agencies.”

1          “And undermine the actions of the agencies.”

2          “The Republican federal judges take up the ball and undercut the President and the operation of executive branch agencies by proclaiming that the President is playing games.”

1          “Sort of a new take on the old rope-a-dope one–two punch.  Not pretty.”

. . .

1/2       “Courts are increasingly illegitimate, partisan and dishonest.  The day may come when they may need to be disregarded.”

. . .  

2/1       “Journalists typically note the political party and state of a legislator at the first mention of her or his name in an article.  ‘Congressman Billy Bob Jenkins (R-Uranus).’  Articles about court decisions may refer to the politician who appointed the judge in the last few sentences and thus the insight is often among the first sentences to be edited.  In the interests of full disclosure and recognizing that space is always at a premium, articles should note the President who appointed a federal judge in parens at the first reference to a judge or justice.  ‘Chief Justice John Roberts (Bush II)’.”  

. . .

[See the editorial at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/opinion/a-court-upholds-republican-chicanery.html?hpwand and the article linked in the piece.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

There is no law; there is only ideology.

Don’t believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Constitutional Remedies With An Expiration Date? Affirmative Action and Marriage Neutrality. Again. (December 10, 2012)

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Gay Politics, Judges, Law, Less Government Regulation Series, Miscegenation, Society, Supreme Court on December 17, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

A          “By my simple way of thinking, a constitutional right is either a constitutional right or it is not a constitutional right.  So you say that we treat everyone equally by not treating everyone equally for twenty-five years starting in 2003.  And then the unequal treatment in the name of equal treatment expires in 2028.”

B          “Yup.”

A          “The handiwork of Justice O’Connor.”

B          “Yup.  Not very tidy but workable.” 

A          “But when it comes to marriage neutrality, there is no public incubation period.”

B          “Nope.”

A          “In twenty-five years, no one will even pause when two guys or two gals get married.  But then there is the countervailing contention that society needs to change at its own pace and the law should follow.  Yet you maintain that the Supremes should simply state that it is the law of the land now.”

B          “Yup.  Because it is the law of the land.”

A          “And one person is now elected to make that decision in and for America.  Our friend Tony Kennedy.  The guy who could have been Bork.”

B          “Yup.  Another rich White boy who is a byproduct of one of the two most profitable law schools and an adherent of one of the two most powerful religions.  The youngster who always crayoned within the lines and then as a teenager completely penciled in the designated oval with a number 2 lead pencil is assigned to pen a decision that impacts the lives and the liberties and the pursuit of happiness of millions.”

A          “At the end of the day, the answer is simple.  You need to review the Protest Poem – The Declaration of Independence – quill penned before the Owners Manual – the Constitution.  ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

B          “Yup.  That will work.”

A          “And reference the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution for good measure.”

B          “Yup.  Absent attacks such as 12/7 and 9/11 that trigger a sea change in public opinion, no public consensus has emerged as rapidly in American history.”

A          “If the vote at the Conference is 5 – 4 in favor of marriage neutrality, Kennedy will write the defining opinion of his career.”

B          “Yup.  The minority will write the Plessy v. Ferguson decision for this century.”        

A          “Some guys get all the luck.”

B          “Yup.  They are reactionary guys.  You have got to give it to them.  The polite description is to note that they are off the wall.”

A          “If Roberts sees the writing on the wall, however, he may switch to the majority and opt to write the opinion himself.”

B          “Maybe.  Roberts took some history courses in college and is shrewd enough to foresee Clio’s ultimate verdict.”

A          “By my simple way of thinking, a constitutional right is either a constitutional right or it is not a constitutional right.  Marriage neutrality is a right.”

B          “What is gestating will be revealing.” 

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled The Conservative Solution To Affirmative Action (October 15, 2012), The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative and Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012) and September 17 – Constitution Day (September 19, 2011) and the “e-ssay” titled “Strict Construction” Strictly Construed (March 14, 2005) discussing Loving v. Virginia (1967) where the Supreme Court in an unanimous opinion affirmed the right to marry as a fundamental constitutional freedom.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Marriage – the fundamental Constitutional right of every person to be miserable

Marriage = one consenting adult and one consenting adult

Marriage Neutrality – the government stays out of the picture and away from the altar

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.  As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.  We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Thomas Jefferson (engraved on the Jefferson Memorial)

Women: 2; Men: 3; Boys: 4 – A winning combination