Friday, March 18, 2005

Our Justice System Is The Real Criminal

By Bob Weir - March 17th, 2005 - The American Thinker

Thanks to a liberal, permissive system that sacrifices good judgment for political correctness, 3 innocent people are dead. Brian Nichols, a 33 year-old, 6 footer, weighing 200 pounds, with a record of violence, was incarcerated for rape, sodomy, and unlawful imprisonment, for tying up his victim with duct tape and assaulting her for 3 days. He had recently been held over in prison while awaiting a second trial, after the first one ended in a hung jury. Due to the severity of the charges, he was not free on bail, and had spent several months behind bars.

According to the rules, which say that a prisoner must not be brought into court wearing prison attire or handcuffs to avoid prejudicing the jury, Mr. Nichols was escorted to a special room on the same floor as the courtroom so he could change into street clothes and have his handcuffs removed. His escort, a female deputy sheriff, was quickly overpowered and her gun was wrested from her before she was pistol whipped, and left bleeding in a hallway as her desperate prisoner headed for the courtroom with a loaded weapon.

Judges show a slavish adherence to any rules that pretend evil people are protected by rights so that the innocent are protected. This has long since been turned into a mockery of sanity through the stupid application by our judges. Judges have no concern for the innocent when they apply these rules. They recognize that the fat salaries lawyers and judges make in our society are dependent on increasing crime. They do that by defending the revolving door criminal justice system that currently exists. Why else do you think they go beserk when laws such as "three strikes" are passed? What they see is a diminishment of crime that will reduce their totalitarian power, and their ability to run an extortion system.

Sunday, March 06, 2005

Men in Black

How the Supreme Court is Destroying America
By Mark Levin
Review by Judith Niewiadomski

Ms. Niewiadomski has reviewed a book that everyone needs to read. Most of the corruption of the American Court system starts with the arrogant out of touch justices that Phyllis Schlafly calls "The Supremacists". From the power seizure of Marbury vs Madison, courts have waged a continual battle to dominate our lives and establish the judicial oligarchy that the judges and lawyers seek.

Three strikes is a perfect example. The huge drop in crime that resulted from the passage of these laws has not stopped the legal community from being nearly unanimous in their opposition. The revolving door system that causes over 15,000 murders in America is the fault of the courts, judges and lawyers. You will never get them to admit this. Instead they are already subverting these laws to get their partners in crime, the criminals, back on the streets.

Why is this book so important?
The Supreme Court consists of people no wiser and no more moral than the rest of society. Dr. Levin gives numerous examples of Supreme Court rulings which violate the Constitution: maintaining slavery in the Dred Scott decision; authorizing the internment of Japanese Americans in Korematsu v. United States, and authorizing segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. The people can do better by exercising their power to legislate. Dr. Levin warns, "The judiciary, operating outside its scope, is the greatest threat to representative government that we face today."

In this review Judith Niewiadomski has done a masterful job of summarizing the points in Mark Levin's excellent book.

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Judicial Supremacists and the Despotic Branch

Mark Alexander - 3/4/2005 - The Federalist Patriot

"The a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson

Left-judiciary Supremacists -- Justice Anthony Kennedy and Court Jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- cited "national consensus" as a factor in Tuesday's Roper v. Simmons ruling. In other words, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy. Which is to say, while riding roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as they overturned the laws of 19 states, the Supremes blithely pushed the nation one step closer toward what everyone since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.

This editorial explains the out of touch supremacists new willingness to claim they know what the people want better than the people do, and goes on to describe the growing willingness of the supremacists to rule based on foreign law.

There are times when a group of people talk so exclusively to each other that they lose touch with what is happening around them when it is in conflict with what their group is saying. The famous statement by a leftist leader that she "did not see how Nixon won the Presidency, she didn't know anyone who had voted for him" being a prime example. Though I did not vote for him, I knew many people who voted for Clinton. Can any intelligent person be so cloistered that they do not know a single person from the group that constitutes the majority of an election at any point in time? I think of this whenever the courts claim to speak for the people.

We are now burdened by a court system that is so out of touch in its arrogance, that the supremacists on the bench truly have no idea how the majority of Americans view them. However they claim to know what these people want, though they themselves are too gutless to ever stand for public office in front of the people. They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and in recent rulings they publicly state their violation of that oath by ruling based on foreign law when it is conflict with the document they swore to uphold.

Is there anything more contemptible than to arrogantly brag about violating your duties?