Archive for the Judicial Arrogance Category

Weaponizing The Judiciary: Democratic Prosecutors + Democratic Judges; Republican Prosecutors + Republican Judges:  Bad Math, Very Bad Math (December 4, 2023)

Posted in Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Law on December 4, 2023 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “If there are any competent ones in the future to chronicle our present, historians may consider it a bad idea.”

J          “This may be the Age of Bad Ideas.”

. . .

K          “The Democratic prosecutors have done a far more effective job teaming up with Democratic judges to prosecute Republicans.  The Republicans are vicious and ruthless enough to follow suit, yet they are clearly behind the eight ball.”

J          “Give them a chance.  They are just slow.   You know Republicans.”

K          “The courts really are political war zones.”

. . .

K          “In my more than fifty years observing the judiciary, both state and federal courts, I have watched the system degenerate into a filthy cess pool of corruption and cronyism.”

J          “Don’t lose faith.  It can get worse.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

We live in a country with many, many, many rules and many, many, many laws, but we do not live in a country that believes in or adheres to the rule of law.

You cannot get out of bed in the morning without violating some section of title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In fact, and as a matter of law, you cannot stay in bed in the morning without violating some section of title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In practice, the United States is a system of men not laws because men and women opt from the panoply of laws that punish all behavior and decide who is and who is not imprisoned.

There is no law.  There is only ideology.

Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Constitution, Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Law School, Noble Prize in Jurisprudence on October 16, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who really knows something about jurisprudence and the impact of courts, judges, lawyers and police on the lives and livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Someone who lives the conviction that men and women should establish and respect some norms and standards that are promulgated clearly to all and enforced equally in favor of and against all.”

J          “The law schools are vacuous deserts of inbreeding and infighting that gestate little legal gamesters.  The bench is a magnet for wankers who played the legal game profitably and perpetuate the racket for the benefit of the judges and a few lawyers.  Is anyone qualified in America?  Is someone outside American eligible?  Give the nod to another underappreciated and overworked public defender who somehow manages to make a difference.”

K          “They were included within the group of individuals acknowledged and celebrated last year.  The recipient of the second annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence . . . is John W. Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute for his and its dedication to the protection and defense of civil liberties and human rights.  He and the Institute are indeed public defenders of law and policy who have made and are making a difference.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)” and “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

I wasn’t using my civil liberties anyway

Five Red Rich Republican “Catholic” Corporatist “White” Boys . . . Versus . . .  Four Blue Comfortable Democratic “Jewish” Individualist White “Girls” . . . And All By-Products Of The S.I.C.  (October 2, 2017)

Posted in Courts, First Monday In October, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Kleptocracy, Law, Schooling Industrial Complex, Supreme Court, Technology on October 2, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “They . . . are . . . back.”

J          “And now a majority does not have our back.”

K          “They are now poised to foist the burdens of existence on the backs of the common man.”

. . .

J          “That is the common thread.  They are all by-products of the S.I.C.”

K          “We need different products, by and by.”

J          “The common thread is that they responded to or rejected the conventional doctrine at the same narrow-minded indoctrinating institutions of the Schooling Industrial Complex (SIC).”

K          “What no one seems to get because no one seems to know and no one seems to care is that scrounging up Supreme Court Justices from the pool of Federal Appellate Court Judges is drawing the worst from the worst.”

J          “I agree.  But no one knows and no one cares.”

. . .

K          “Gorsuch may be a phenotypic Episcopalian, but he is at core a genotypic Catholic.  Thomas acquired deep scars on his journey to ‘Whitehood’ and acceptance and is also a congenital Catholic.  Breyer is intellectually female.  Sotomayor is a secular Jew.  The chasm between the five red rich Republican ‘Catholic’ corporatist ‘white’ boys and the four blue comfortable Democratic ‘Jewish’ individualist white ‘girls’ on the Supreme Court is stark and unprecedented in American history.”

J          “The country believed that it needed to get over and move beyond a debate that arose around Kennedy and his Catholicism that now cannot be raised or even intimated.”

K          “John not Tony.”

J          “John and Tony.  A person simply cannot pledge fealty and loyalty to Rome and to the U.S. Constitution.  Period.”

. . .

K          “To describe it as a war between those who want to ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ and those who do not want to let others ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ is too blatant for polite company.  Better to be more discrete and intimate that a group of five is quietly and surreptitiously imposing its religion as the national religion in America.”

J          “What troubles me is that the ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ wing of the Catholics did not get a foot hold or even one lobbyist on the Court.” 

K          “What if the Court granted the current Pope the right to file an amicus curiae brief in every case?  The current Pope is a member of the ‘Immanentize The Eschaton’ wing.  Would the Supremes be obligated to listen?  To follow without question or hesitation?  That may not be so bad.”

. . .

K          “The Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology is to be announced today.  In the next few decades, the person who proves that an individual is born with the ‘I’ Gene or with the ‘We’ Gene may receive a much deserved Nobel.  At heart, 4.5 Justices have the ‘I’ Gene and 4.5 Justices have the ‘We’ Gene.  Kennedy may still have a heart and a soul and a recessive ‘We’ Gene.”

J          “Tony not John.  The helicopter beanie folks are developing AI (Artificial Intelligence).  They may need to develop AI (Artificial Ignorance) to substitute for the poor decisions and worse judgment of the judges and justices in America.  That is more of a challenge than anyone has contemplated.”

K          “A typical judge pays attention to a high profile case, dismisses the other cases and goes home.  The naïve engineers may not recognize that reality and instead create a sophisticated Digital Decision Device (DDD) that marshals the facts, discerns the law, finds truth, and does justice.”

J          “Unprecedented.  One can only hope.”

. . .

K          “The Supremes are deciding whether we live in a democracy or an oligopoly/kleptocracy in the context of a scam named after Governor Gerry.  The majority on the court owes their jobs to a broken political system and is not likely to fix it.”

J          “The privacy issues turn on whether each Justice personally feels threatened by the changes brought by technology not whether the ordinary person is threatened.”           

. . .

K          “The nascent thought is growing that the Supremes lack legitimacy and accountability in America.  Only the power they exercise that derives from the sword and purse maintains their dominion and domination.”

J          “They have transformed into a lobbying institution on First Street rather than on K Street with the disturbing ability to send out storm troopers to enforce their edicts.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “The ‘I’ Gene; The ‘We’ Gene:  Searching For The Genie In All Of Us (April 3, 2017)”, “Immanentizing The Eschaton: Your Supreme Court And The Great Religious War (October 7, 2013)”, “Adjunktification” In The S.I.C. (Schooling Industrial Complex) (March 13, 2017)”, “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) and the “First Monday In October” e-commentary in 2014, 2015 and 2016.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

There is no law; there is only ideology

Fall falling; leaves leaving; winter winning

Federal Judges: Institutionalized Bullying (September 18, 2017)

Posted in Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Law, Law School, On [Traits/Characteristics] on September 18, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “I pursued law to protect the kids from the bullies and discovered to my horror that the bullies are on the bench.”

L2        “Me too.  The legal system is not failing, it is failed.”

. . .

L1        “The Federal Courts are the House of Lords.  The state courts are the House of Commons.  The Federal Courts serve the interests of the U.S. government and the well-to-do/the well-connected and address a few high profile and sexy cases.  The state courts offer occasional relief to the common man.  The racket is also known as ‘Federalism’ in American law.  Charming system.”

L2        “The process is aided and abetted by selecting bullies from the bar to serve as Federal Judges.  The carefully calibrated system of checks and balances rewards those least fit and places them in power.”

L1        “In one case, the lawyer who had been bullied as a little boy spent day and night building the network and contacts to get the Federal Judgeship.  I warned a few of the kids who threw snow balls at him as he stood in line waiting for the yellow Blue Bird to land muttering to himself ‘Someday I will be a Federal Judge, someday I will be a Federal Judge, someday I will be a Federal Judge’.  He did what needed to be done to get into a profitable law school and then got the Federal Judgeship.  He now peers out from his perch at all the kids who threw snow balls at someone they did regard as a peer.  He got and is getting his revenge.  Not by challenging the bullies but by becoming a bully.”

L2        “No surprise.  Bullies were bullied.  It is contagious.”

. . .

L1        “Imagine if you could look up at him – while privately looking down on him – and say ‘How about you and me step outside big boy and handle this like real men?’”

L2        “Bullies need to be confronted.  But for simply challenging a bully, the wimp could unleash his enforcers from the U.S. Marshal’s Service and after roughing you up issue you a ticket to Florence.”

L1        “Now that is not such a bad outcome, really.  Tuscany is beautiful this time of year.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “SCOTUS on TV:  ‘They Might Not Be Such Bastards’ (March 26, 2012)”, “The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge:  Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013)”, “Assigning Blame:  The Lawyers:  50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public:  50 Percent; The Judges:  100 Percent (December 3, 2012)”, “Arctic High School Court (May 23, 2016)” and “The Ninth Circuit:  Two-Tiered ‘Just-Us’ Review (February 13, 2017)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

September 17 – Have a happy Constitution Day

Equality On The Bench Today (August 21, 2017)

Posted in Courts, Equal Protection, Gender, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Race on August 21, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “The courts today are shining sterling models of equality and opportunity.  The female judges, the black judges, the brown judges, the red judges, the yellow judges, and the azul judges are now just as inept, arrogant and indifferent – no less and no more – as the white judges.”

J          “Now that is progress we can get behind.  Our society – at least the court system – has moved into a ‘post-identity’ politics world.  Will the Democrats get the message and get it?”

. . .

[Richard “Dick” Claxton Gregory (October 12, 1932 – August 19, 2017)]

Bumper sticker of the week:

The “Just-Us” System

Honesty And Efficiency . . . In Life And Law (July 31, 2017)

Posted in Courts, Economics, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, On [Traits/Characteristics], Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Truth on July 31, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .    

K          “Economists are indifferent to honesty yet revere efficiency as a fetish.  Look at how inefficient the practice and pursuit of dishonesty is in our daily lives.  I have enough experience and am confident that one out of every ten of her statements is false.  Confirming the veracity of her statements consumes resources, both in time and money.  Of her ten statements, which one is false?  The seventh statement?  The second statement?  The fifth statement is the one in the middle and surely must be false.  Surely.  Probably.  Possibly.  Likely.”

J          “If you cannot rely on the veracity of every statement, then you cannot rely on the veracity of any statement.”

K          “The dilemma.  The expensive dilemma.  After nine honest statements, the next statement must be a lie.  Then, if or when it is a lie, can I rely on the next nine statements as truth?  However, the very next statement may be a lie followed perhaps by nine honest statements.”

J          “They are right.  Inefficiency is so inefficient.”

. . .     

K          “I have seen the handiwork of a judge who probably is not a fundamentally dishonest person who nonetheless wrote at least one blatantly dishonest decision.  He could not know.  And I know the truth, the facts and the law.  If that is the only data, is the judge accurately characterized as dishonest?”

J          “If someone is dishonest only ten percent of the time, is the person honest?”

. . .

J          “Joe DiMaggio said ‘There is always some kid who may be seeing me for the first or last time, I owe him my best.’  The judge did not care that you would only be seeing him once.”   

K          “And no camera lights were on him to keep him honest.”

J          “When you get right down to it, someone who is dishonest only ten percent of the time is presumptively dishonest.”

K          “Challenging the presumption is expensive, both in time and money.  Over the decades I have discovered that judges, all on the public payroll in America, are more dishonest more of the time than any other profession except real estate agents and used car salesmen.”   

J          “They are in the private sector and are expected to cant their sales pitch.  Judges may forget that they are in the public sector and are paid by the public.”

K          “Their power is unchecked.  There is no ethos of ethics or honesty in America today.”

. . .   

[See the e-commentary at “On Standards & Quality (July 20, 2015)”, “The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)”, “Assigning Blame:  The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012)” and “Perjury, the American Way (February 20, 2006).”

Bumper stickers of the week:

If it feels good, do it

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”  Friedrich Nietzsche (?)

The Ninth Circuit:  Two-Tiered “Just-Us” Review (February 13, 2017)

Posted in Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Law, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Truth on February 13, 2017 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “There are two standards of review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  If the plaintiff is a favored or famous individual or the matter is a cause célèbre, the Niners read the briefs and write a coherent decision.  If the plaintiff is not among the elite and is some ordinary stiff, the Niners do not read the briefs and instead distort both the law and the facts to make the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyer look like fools.” 

J          “That is, perforce, perjury, but that is never a concern or an impediment.  They swore to uphold the law.  They are not upholding the law.  When they issue a decision, they are not required to attach an affidavit stating that the decision is an honest description of the law and the facts.  They already swore to provide an honest description of the law and the facts.”

K          “Perjury is the American Way.”

. . .

K          “If a case or issue is hip, cool, trendy, sexy and/or well-publicized, the Niners give it the time of day.  The recent case involving the trendy issue du jour provided an opportunity for an ideological pronouncement.  The Niners are more predictable than the sunrise.” 

. . .

K          “Cockroaches work diligently in the dark and scurry away when the lights are turned on.  Judges work diligently when the television lights are turned on and scurry away when the lights are turned off.”

J          “Perhaps the Niners should candidly and honestly state that they will not read a brief filed by a little person unless accompanied by a filing fee four (4) times the filing fee charged to large players and institutions.”

K          “Ten (10) times the filing fee may not be enough.  How much is enough.”

. . .

K          “Too bad we cannot depose God to determine the Truth.  Based on decades of study and careful observation, I calculate that aggregating the acts of perjury perpetrated by each judge and applying the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines would consign most judges to prison for life.”

J          “Now there is one for you.  There are more felons or technically unindicted felons on the bench at large than among the public.  I missed that discussion in my high school civics class.”

. . .

J          “Some ideas are too Truthful to entertain for even a few seconds.”

K          “When you think on it, perjury is the back bone of the American Judicial System.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary “On Standards & Quality (July 20, 2015)”, “The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)”, “Assigning Blame:  The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012)” and “Perjury, the American Way (February 20, 2006).”

Bumper stickers of the week:

“There is always some kid who may be seeing me for the first or last time, I owe him my best.”  Joe DiMaggio

Courts have failed.  Courts exist to make life easy and lucrative for judges and to make money for obliging and cooperative lawyers.

The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)

Posted in Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Monopoly, Rackets, Rule of Law on August 29, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Courts have failed.  Courts exist to make life easy and lucrative for judges and to make money for obliging and cooperative lawyers.”

J          “Just another racket.”

K          “The lawyer’s unwitting role is to lead the public to believe that we live under a system of laws with neutral judges who listen to all arguments and discern the law and facts objectively.”

J          “A lawyer goes on the bench so that he or she can go home early with full and guaranteed pay.”

. . .

K          “We need to create courts that find some truth and do some justice.  Hundreds of years ago in England, the courts of ‘law’ dispensed very little truth or justice and applied a ruthless version of the law.  The market responded and a new court system and court house was established across the street – the court of ‘equity’.  If you fell behind on your house payment, the ‘law’ court would toss you out in the street.  However, go across the street and the ‘equity’ court would give you credit for what you invested in the house and even prevent the law court from tossing you out in the street.”

J          “Isn’t that why they call what you invest in the home – dollars and sweat – the ‘equity’ in your house.  The thing called ‘equity’ in your home was created to address that personal investment in and commitment to the home.”

K          “Exactly.  There are still equitable causes of action and equitable remedies.  Dozens of years ago, all the big legal players decided to merge the ‘law’ court and the ‘equity’ court into one court.  That created a monopoly.  And the courts quickly began to act like monopolists.  They could and do whatever they want to do which is typically to dismiss a case and go home.”

J          “With full and guaranteed pay.  Sounds like the merger of the National Football League and the American Football League into the National Football League in 1970.  Monopoly is bad.”

K          “Monopoly is very bad.  We need to return to our roots and create a new court of ‘equity’ that could be called . . . the ‘Court of Truth and Justice’ to address the genuine legal needs of the populace.”

J          “What you are talking about is what I call restoring the rule of law in America.”

. . .

K          “We need a test case.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Assigning Blame: The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012).”]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Why not try the rule of law for a week or two?

Arctic High School Court (May 23, 2016)

Posted in Courts, Due Process, Hypocrisy, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty on May 23, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

_          “Affirming cases that should be reversed.”

_          “Reversing cases that should be affirmed.”

_          “Construing the rules to promote the most unjust, protracted and expensive determination of a matter.”

_          “Denying requests for oral argument and thus violating the most fundamental tenet of due process.”

_          “Contending dishonestly and fraudulently that the lawyer has waived an argument when the lawyer clearly and unambiguously has not waived and would not under any circumstances waive an argument.”

_          “Spewing an order as ‘Entered at the direction of an individual justice’ without stating the name of the ‘Just-us’ so that one is unable to determine and track the whims, inclinations and peccadillos of the Justice.  And usually an order that allows the Justice and the Court not to do any work and to go home early.”

_          “Dismissing the most meritorious and novel argument by demeaning and dissing it as ‘absolutely without merit’ because it would require reflection and intellect to appreciate.”

_          “Disregarding the law.”

_          “Making up the law.”

_          “Disregarding the facts.”

_          “Making up the facts.”

_          “Developing the reputations of friends and destroying the reputations of non-friends.”

_          “Embarrassing an attorney at every opportunity to perpetuate the most institutionalized system of bullying in America.”

_          “Adopting the most arrogant resolution of a matter.”

_          “Taking far too long to address a matter and then getting it wrong.”

. . .

This bill of particulars is inspired in part by the example in the Declaration of Independence that enumerates the grievances that underpinned the decision to declare independence from George The Third.  Now may be the time to declare independence from a legal system that is not working.

Bumper stickers of the week:

Arctic Supreme Court > Arctic High Court > Arctic High School >>>>>>>> Arctic High School Court

Our Motto:  Petty, Personal, Political

Appalling, Disgusting, Revolting

Grade (very low standards; grade inflation):  D+

You can say with a high degree of confidence that the Arctic High School Court will more likely than not reach the wrong decision.

Hotel Arctic High School:  You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave!  We are all swirling in the high school vortex writ large.

If the shoe fits, you’ve got to indict.

natural born Citizen; Natural Born Killers (March 7, 2016)

Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Elections, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Originalism, Presidency, Republicans, Supreme Court on March 7, 2016 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “An individual who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ such as John McCain and Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President or Vice President of the United States.  The ‘Originalist’ interpretation of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the U.S. Constitution is clear and unassailable.”

J          “To honor Scalia’s passing and continue its practice of intervening in elections, the Supreme Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction and enter an injunction enjoining Ted Cruz from running.  For the good of the cause.  And the Constitution.”

K          “Indeed.  Certainement.  Post haste.  He professes to be an honorable man.  And also one of the original ‘Originalists’.  He would surely concur.”

. . .

J          “Many clear thinking individuals now maintain that those born in the United States and those born elsewhere who meet legal requirements meet the contemporary understanding of citizenship at birth.” 

K          “That is the perspective of the see-me, feel-me, touch-me; I’m-okay, you’re-okay; peace, love and Woodstock; tune-in, turn-on, tune-out; get-down, get-funky; if-it-feels-good, do-it school of jurisprudence.”

J          “Yup.”

K          “Kinda makes sense.”

J          “Does.”

. . .

K          “The boys debating with the one who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ are behaving like ‘Natural Born Killers’.”

J          “So in the one who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’.”    

. . .

[See the discussion at http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court and https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b.]

[See the discussion at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Fukushima Daiichi