Tuesday, February 22, 2005

She's Worth 'Going Nuclear' Over

By Harold Johnson - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - Orange County Register

State Justice Brown would be a champion of freedom on the federal bench

[The OC Register web site requires a login to read the article - use the ID "anonanon" with Password "anon1234"]

If GOP leaders really do go to the wall for Brown - and succeed - a bright future awaits her on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (a post that could position her for an eventual Supreme Court nomination). But her departure will be a loss for the law in California.

This daughter of an Alabama sharecropper - this African-American woman who attended segregated schools in her native state, and put herself through college and law school in California - offers testimony to the rewards that can come from character and can-do commitment.

But Brown's star power derives from more than her impressive personal story. She is an intellectual leader of California's high court and its most articulate voice for limited government and individual freedom.

This nation would be well served with Justice Janice Rogers Brown on any court. She is simultaneously one of the most impressive and down to earth people I have ever met. I do not say that because she is conservative. I say that because she is an intelligent fighter for freedom and restrictions on the power of government, including limiting the power of the courts to abuse the powerless.

Great American.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Starr - Lawyers Share Blame

By W. Dale Nelson - Casper Wyoming Star-Tribune - February 19, 2005

Recent scandals in corporate America reflect a "loosening of a fundamental bond in our society, the bond of trust," and lawyers must share the blame (emphasis added), former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr said Friday.

Speaking at a Wyoming Law Review symposium on professional ethics, Starr said, "One is struck these days with the outpouring of concern throughout our society about ... excesses in the marketplace where moral judgments seem terribly clouded by avarice."

SHARE the blame? The most egregious avarice shown in our nation is the avarice by lawyers and judges. Both are dedicated to the premise that their pocketbooks are best fattened by a culture where crime and evil is actively condoned by the courts, and therefore commonly practiced in our society, so everyone has to hire them (for a fee) to protect them from the crime.

The extension of "rights" to the terrorists in Guantanamo showed little concern for the terrorists or the consequences to society of extending them rights. It was another in the ongoing examples of seizing power by judges and lawyers over another aspect of our lives. Lawyers will certainly gain power if every soldier has actions in battle reviewed by the courts to protect the "rights" of the enemy.

Duplicitous and complex logic is always used to cover up and misdirect society from their true motivation in these expansions of their power, avarice pure and simple. Pretending to care about justice for the enemy conbatants at Guantanamo Starr said, "That is how strong our shared sense of fairness is". We must be very careful before believing there is any great difference between lawyers who profess to be conservatives, like Starr, versus lawyers who profess to be liberal. Neither are on the side of justice.

The consequence of judicial and lawyer avarice is our revolving door "lets make a deal" justice system where judges show utter contempt for the safety of law abiding citizens, and equal contempt for justice. They care more about the community of lawyers than they ever will about our society.

The new sentiments by Starr in this article are simply a growing concern about how many in our society now hold the system they represent in the same contempt that I do. They are searching for some way to pretend they "care" to lessen this revulsion for them by our citizens. The concern they express will be meaningless until they actually start to care about justice more than money.

I have never been able to understand how the many nice decent people who practice law (many are my friends) can be so impervious to the corruption of the system they represent. Can you explain it?