Archive for the Law Category

Fourth Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 21, 2019)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Law, Noble Prize in Jurisprudence on October 21, 2019 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who or some organization that 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          “Someone who advances the Rule of Law and stuff like that.  I like it.”

K          “The recipient of the fourth annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence . . . is another group . . . you got it . . . the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for its continuing efforts to advance and defend civil rights and civil liberties.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Third Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 15, 2018)”, “Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017)”, “First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)” and “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Give civil rights and civil liberties a chance

Senate Repeals Constitution.  Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day! (February 18, 2019)

Posted in Congress, Courage, Democrats, First Amendment, Freedom / Liberty, Law, Law School, Republicans, Rule of Law on February 18, 2019 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “They cannot do that.  It’s treason.”

K          “Treason is not a good enough reason for them.  They did do it because they proclaimed themselves above the law and unbounded by the United States Constitution.  It’s the American political way.”

J          “They clearly violated their oath to support and defend the United States Constitution.”

K          “There is that.”

. . .

K          “In a grand irony, Senate Bill 1 purports to repeal United States Constitutional Amendment 1.”

J          “There is something surreal and unreal about it.  We need to generate public interest in moving America toward considering the adoption of the Rule of Law.  Like that is going to happen.”

. . .

K          “The Supreme Court already addressed the issue in an unanimous opinion in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), with Marshal obviously not participating and Rehnquist obviously only concurring.  The decision reaches the not surprising conclusion that the government cannot prohibit the peaceful advocacy and conduct of a politically motived boycott.  No one has even thought to question this established bedrock of Constitutional law.”

J          “Some of the senators actually have a flickering scintilla of integrity, except when it really counts and character is revealed.”

. . .

K          “Following the criminal indictment of each Senator and as a consequence, the law degrees of the lawyers among the pack also should be revoked.”

J          “Law schools do whatever advances their economic interests.  Bar associations do whatever advances their economic interests.  Some bar associations consider treason to be a reason to revoke a law license, but not all of them.  Placing graduates in the Senate is great for the law school’s financial bottom line.”

K          “Someone should tabulate a list of the law schools that spawned these critters.  Someone observed that American-trained lawyers are only concerned with whether they can get away with something, whereas European-trained lawyers are concerned with whether an action or decision comports with the law.”

. . .

K          “The judges who will be asked to review the treasonous repudiation of the Constitution are by-products of the same law schools that spawned the criminals and the criminality.”

J          “The feedback loop is bleak.  The prospects are terrifying.”

K          “Four Justices support the First Amendment and five Justices support the First Amendment when they like who the person is and what the person is saying.”

J          “Bleak and terrifying.”

. . .

K          “The vote provides much valuable . . . and free . . . insight and information.  Rubio along with Cruz, Graham, Klobuchar and Romney announced that they are unfit to be Senators and unqualified to be President.  Booker, Brown, Gillibrand, Harris, Hirono, Kaine, Sanders and Warren announced that they may be worth additional consideration for the top slot.”

. . .

K          “Yes, and Rand Paul who is the only Republican who voted to uphold the Constitution.  He is the only Republican qualified for the top slot.”

J          “Or fit for the Senate.  An entire political party less one is unconstitutional per se and all of its members less one should be impeached and indicted.”

K          “And half of the other political party is unconstitutional and those members should be impeached and indicted.”

. . .

[February 23 – No War on Venezuela Day]

[See the e-commentary at “At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012)”, “The Supreme Court On Drugs (June 25, 2007)” and the e-commentary under the Category “First Amendment”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Senate Bill 1 > United States Constitutional Amendment 1  United States Constitutional Amendment 1 > Senate Bill 1

Treason is treason.

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”  Maya Angelou

“To know who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”  Voltaire

A few years ago, the original vote card tallying the Senate vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that passed in 1964 was displayed at a National Archives exhibit.  For all time, there are check marks under “No” next to Ernest Gruening’s name and next to Wayne Morse’s name and under “Yes” is the name of every other Senator then in office. 

77 Senators Voted To Repeal The First Amendment / Constitution:  

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Braun (R-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Jones (D-AL)
Kennedy (R-LA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
McSally (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Perdue (R-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Romney (R-UT)
Rosen (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sinema (D-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)
Young (R-IN)

23 Senators Voted To Uphold The First Amendment / Constitution: 

Baldwin (D-WI)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Carper (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warren (D-MA)

The “Intellectual Infrastructure Investment Act” (“III”)  Oh, And Happy Valentine’s Day! (February 11, 2019)

Posted in Courts, Economics, Education, Law, Law School, Schooling, Schooling Industrial Complex on February 11, 2019 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “Who is doing the thinking in America?”

J          “Who is even thinking about who is doing the thinking in America?”

K          “Troubling, when you think about it.”

J          “America has the chattering class and the blabbering class and the blogging class and the twittering twit class, but not really a thinking class.”

. . .

K          “We can draw on the bipartisan enthusiasm for infrastructure.  Think about the ‘Intellectual Infrastructure Investment Act’ (‘III’) or the Triple ‘I’ as it is known in the vernacular.”

J          “Would you first establish and endow a great School of Economics or a great School of Law?  Thought must be given to establishing and endowing a great School of Foreign Policy and not long after that a great School of Journalism.”

K          “We need greatness.  We may have to settle for goodness.  We may have to settle for okayness.  We may have to settle for notcrappyness.  Some institutions need to respond to that must elusive thing in recent American experience:  Competition.  Competition with the Schooling Industrial Complex (‘SIC’).”

J          “But we really need to put the SIC out of business.”

. . .

K          “In a delightful irony, the SIC will fund the new paradigm.  A billion dollar judgment in the CTJ against Harvard Law School for damages from Pompeo’s criminal activity and a billion dollar judgment in the CTJ against Yale Law School for damages from Bolton’s criminal activity provide enough seed money to fund the undertaking.  If necessary, the judgments can be satisfied from the assets of the respective parent corporations.  Just transfer the assets digitally.”

J          “Brilliant.  Shift resources from ‘Schooling’ to ‘Education’ without any government dollars.  The project also should aspire to take the ‘A’ out of the MICAC and to substitute a real ‘A’ for clear thinking.  Let’s get going.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Suing Law Schools; Suing Gun Makers.  Oh, And Happy Law Day! (April 30, 2018)”, “Close the Harvard Business School (February 23, 2009)”, “The Court Of Truth And Justice (CTJ) (August 29, 2016)”, “On The Digital Revolution (March 22, 2010)”, “‘Adjunktification’ In The S.I.C. (Schooling Industrial Complex) (March 13, 2017)”, “Schooling The Apparatchiks For the Kleptocrats (December 7, 2015)”, “On Merit and the Meritocracy (January 11, 2010)”, “Clinton, Inc., Trump, Inc., Bush, Inc., Kennedy, Inc., O’Bama, Inc. (October 24, 2016)”, “MPP / MPA:  Are They Really Masters? (November 13, 2017)” and “Johnnie Bolton:  The Triumph Of the Chickenhawks And Neo-Cons.  Join Fellow Patriots For The ‘April 14 Rally’ And The Memorial Day ‘March For America’.  Oh, And Happy April Fool’s Day. (April 2, 2018)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I support the “III Act”

Think big, think long

Judges:  Conflicts Of Interest And The “Self—Interested Empathy Theory” Of Judicial Decision Making (September 10, 2018) 

Posted in Abortion, Fourth Amendment, Law, Rule of Law, Supreme Court on September 10, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A judge shows all-consuming ‘empathy’ for pensions and will use all of the powers at his or her disposal at any and all costs at any and all times and in all and any ways to protect his or her pension.”

J          “So they are too ‘empathetic’ about pensions?”

K          “Exactly.  They are way, way too ‘empathetic’ and have a conflict of interest that precludes them from addressing such matters neutrally, but they address such matters first and foremost.”

. . .

K          “By contrast, judges are given nearly free health care and can flash their ‘judge badge’ if any dispute arises over coverage.  However, when a private citizen encounters a judge who has no experience with criminally intransigent health insurance companies, the judge rules for the insurance company.”

J          “And thus judges make asinine comments in court such as ‘How could the health insurance company make a mistake in coverage because it is their job to know what is covered and not covered’ and then dismiss the case and sanction the injured and uninsured party.”

K          “Indubitably.”

. . .

K          “When it comes to Fourth Amendment protection for cell phones . . . .”

J          “Justices have cell phones.”

K          “Justices have cell phones, but some of them are so cocky that they are above the law that they don’t have to stoop to relying on the mere Fourth Amendment.”

. . .

K          “How many of the Justices flirt with personal pregnancy?”

. . .

K          “The only way to engender empathy is to put the judges in the shoes of the populace or to put the populace in the robes of the judge.”

J          “The latter is more promising.”

K          “Law is too complex and too important to be left to the lawyers and the judges.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Pensions, Conflicts Of Interest And The Illinois Supreme Court (June 1, 2015)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

There is no law, there is only ideology

Deliberating Gun Control Delicately (March 19, 2018)

Posted in Boycott Series, Guns, Law, Second Amendment on March 19, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K(GO) “No psychos.”

GO1     “No psychos.  They give responsible gun owners a bad name.”

K          “Most folks implement the ‘No Psychos’ idea with universal background checks equally for every gun transfer including at gun shows.”

GO2     “That may not work.”

K          “Work with me on this one.  Remember that every psycho who gets a gun takes a gun away from a responsible gun owner.”

GO3     “Hard to argue with that.”

K          “A twenty-one year old male today has a life expectancy of about 61 plus years.  At one gun a month, he will acquire 736 guns, give or take.”

GO1     “There you go.”

K          “So we adopt a minimum purchase age of twenty-one.  On one’s twenty-first birthday, give her or him a gun.  Skip going to the bar and go to the range.  Home on the range, they say.”

GO2     “I hear you.”

K          “One purchase a month is the way to go.  Purchasing a gun without reading a few magazine reviews first may result in you buying the wrong magazine . . . and attached gun.  Buying a gun is not like buying a burger on the drive home.”   

GO3     “That is the difference between a ‘collection of guns’ and a ‘gun collection,’ if you know what I mean.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “The ‘Gun Show Loophole’:  A Dialogue Among Gun Owners.  Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day (February 19, 2018)” and “Get A Gun; Practice Gun Safety (January 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Fe & Pb > ETOH

Gun control means non-psychos hitting their target.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

If you haven’t connected emotionally, you won’t connect intellectually.

Boycott the NRA

Boycott the National Rifle Association

The “Gun Show Loophole”: A Dialogue Among Gun Owners.  Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day! (February 19, 2018)

Posted in Boycott Series, Guns, Law, Second Amendment on February 19, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K(GO) “Here’s another perspective.  Psychos have rights.  Right?  What we need is a law that allows every confirmed psycho to purchase one rifle or pistol a month.”

GO1     “A confirmed psycho?”

K          “Multiple convictions for domestic violence, wife beating, violent outbursts, assault charges.  The usual.”

GO2     “No question that the person is a psycho?”

K          “No question.  While we are at it, how about allowing every confirmed psycho to purchase one rifle or pistol a week.”

GO3     “Now hold on there . . . .  I’m not so sure.  You say he is a confirmed psycho.  Well, if he is a confirmed psycho, he is the type of person who probably should not have a gun.  But only if he is truly a confirmed psycho.”

GO2     “That is where I draw the line.”

. . .

K          “Great Americans like me can buy a gun.  Great Americans like you can buy a gun.  Psycho Americans like the psycho Americans . . . maybe not.”

GO1     “Sounds about right.”

K          “The only solution is to require a background check as part of every purchase from a dealer or from a private purchaser.”

GO2     “That makes some sense.”

. . .      

. . .

K          “In about five minutes after the meeting that night, I moved the three of them off a position they have never even allowed anyone ever to challenge.”  

J          “They may be willing to listen to someone who has a few guns.  Always structure an argument so that they convince themselves.”

K          “The half-life of the message may be two weeks.  I stayed on message and tabled asking them if they were troubled that the Russians appear to have funded the National Rifle Association’s (NRA’s) bombardment of them almost daily with propaganda during the months before the 2016 election.”

J          “Next meeting.  Next month.”

. . .  

[GO:  Gun Owner]

[See the e-commentary at “Get A Gun; Practice Gun Safety (January 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

If you haven’t connected emotionally, you won’t connect intellectually.

Boycott the NRA

Boycott the National Rifle Association

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