Monday, February 27, 2006

High Court To Take Up Pressing Issues This Week

By Linda Greenhouse - February 27th, 2006 - The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — The most pressing and unsettled questions in election law are those that concern the role of money, the role of race and the role of partisanship. The Supreme Court this week will take up all three.

Hearing arguments in a campaign finance case from Vermont on Tuesday and a congressional redistricting case from Texas on Wednesday, the justices will venture onto a shifting landscape where the controlling legal precedents are either unclear or unstable and the prospect for fundamental change looms on the horizon.

On many of the issues, the new Roberts Court will almost certainly be as closely divided as was the Rehnquist Court. Two years ago, for example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was succeeded last month by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., cast the decisive fifth vote to uphold major provisions of a new federal campaign finance law. The justices were unable during that same term to agree on a majority opinion in a case from Pennsylvania on whether the Constitution prohibits a partisan gerrymander.

What a farce. The Supreme Court of the United States has expressed sympathy with the premise that the right of a candidate to SPEND MONEY is an issue of FREE SPEECH but the right of a citizen to DONATE MONEY is not a right of FREE SPEECH but instead AN ACT OF CORRUPTION that must be prohibited.

Democracy is becoming more corrupt because of the idiocy promulgated by stupid court rulings. Every single time the courts try to reduce corruption, they increase it. They then propose another ignorant ruling to fix their previous stupidity. Butting out and letting competition decide races seems completely beyond their intelligence. They keep trying to make the campaigns fair to the candidates they think should win, by carefully balacing the scales of monetary justice they see as critical to fair elections. The hair splitting hypocrisy of this cannot be over emphasized.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Identity Of Official To Be Kept From Libby

by Toni Locy - February 25th, 2006 - The Wichita Eagle (
WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with perjury in the CIA leak case, cannot be told the identity of another government official who is said to have divulged a CIA operative's identity to reporters, a federal judge ruled Friday.

At the same time, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said Libby could have copies of notes he took during an 11-month period in 2003 and 2004 while serving as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The judge also set the stage for a showdown in late April over the defense's plans to subpoena reporters and news organizations for notes and other documents in the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

During a hearing Friday afternoon, Walton said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald can keep secret the other government official's identity because that person has not been charged and has a right to privacy.

Excuse me? What did this judge say? Another government official did what Scooter Libby is charged with lying about but because he has not been charged, Scooter Libby cannot find out who he or she is, and therefore cannot determine if they are the source of the leak that the prosecutor is certain Libby was trying to cover up? And the reason according to the judge is that person has a right to privacy? Doesn't that mean that person also committed no crime? And therefore Scooter Libby committed no crime he needed to cover up? What happened to the right to confront your accuser?

I guess that only applies if you have really committed an offense and if, as Scooter Libby has learned, you are a Republican the rules do not apply. Prosecutors can charge you with perjury if you remember anything differently than a liberal remembers it. That is what this farce is proving to be. Scooter Libby remembers facts about a non crime differently than some liberal reporters and he thus must go to jail . . . for the crime of - being a Republican.

Our courts have not only become totally corrupt. They have become totally politicized. There is no justice in our courts. They are a joke.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Judge Says Lawyers Can't Bring Up Violence

by Louie Gilot - Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - El Paso Times
The jury in the case of the two Border Patrol agents who shot a man in the buttocks last year will get to hear about the victim's alleged drug-smuggling activities but won't get a picture of the border as a violent place for law enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone partly granted the motion by the U.S. attorney -- who is prosecuting the agents -- to exclude any mention of border violence, in particular the recent standoff in Hudspeth County. Lawyers will have to advise all witnesses of the prohibition.

They will be able to ask the judge to allow mentions of border violence on a case-by-case basis, but they will have to approach the bench every time and speak out of earshot of the jury, according to the ruling issued Monday evening.

This is typical of the way Judges treat juries. After all, anyone who has not been to law school cannot possibly be intelligent enough to filter evidence and get to the truth without a Judge deciding what part of "truth" they are allowed to hear. We have a court system that is carefully contrived to make sure that "stupid" juries do not hear all the evidence. Certain evidence must be hidden so that the guilty can go free. This is a necessity of a system where the talent of the lawyer is intended to determine the outcome of the trial, not the truth of what happened.

This is the same basis for voire dire, that amazing process where anyone who reads and keeps themselves literate about what is happening in society is excluded from juries. This assumption is based on the premise that if you have heard anything about a case, and you did not go to law school, you must be biased and cannot determine guilt or innocence objectively. The same grounds can be used to exclude anyone who may have passed the defendant on the street. They cannot be allowed to be on a jury.

The absurdity of this was dramatized when someone who worked for Hertz, but had never met O.J. Simpson, was excluded from the O.J. Simpson jury because he "might have been biased based on O.J. being a spokesman for Hertz" many years before. Actually he simply seemed to be an intelligent person. Defense counsel cannot let an intelligent person on the jury when the defendant is guilty. Juries nowadays represent less than 5% of the American citizenry. That number 5% is what our courts consider a jury of your peers. 95% of American Citizens are not "peers" of the defendant. They might be peers of the victim, but victims are completely ignored by our court system.

Actually that is not true. They are not ignored. They are treated with hostility, almost as enemies of the court. They have no rights as far as Judges are concerned.

Our courts have taken suppression of evidence to such a ridiculous extreme that justice has been abandoned.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Restoration Campaign

It is quite difficult to ever get a Constitutional Amendment passed and takes a great deal of time and effort. Therefore those of us who want to end the judicial oligarchy in this nation need to have an immediate campaign to assure that we get our nation back as soon as possible. My proposal is to restore balance by a significant act to discipline the out-of-control judiciary.

I call it the Representative Democracy Restoration Campaign.

The need is to encourage the legislature to recognize that only a significant act to discipline the judiciary will ever get the attention of the arrogant judicial tyrants. They regularly abuse their power and "make law" from the bench. Since they are forbidden by the "balance of powers" provision in the Constitution from "making law", that means they are violating their oath.

They regularly make rulings where every single justice is in violation of the oath. However no one ever calls them on it. What would happen if just once, the legislature took the position that the courts do not have sole authority to define the Constitution? I call it the Restoration Campaign Mass Impeachment option. It will change the balance of powers in a positive way immediately.

The Congress could easily respond to almost any 5 to 4 ruling by impeaching all the justices that voted in the majority. The grounds would be violation of their oath of office to support the Constitution. Where the despotic justices are "making law", they are clearly in violation of the "separation of powers" provision. In most cases nowadays they are also in violation of the "equal rights" provision as they endeavor to assure equal results by stripping some Americans of their rights so as to give them to others.

I propose this Restoration Campaign as the quickest way to slow down the destruction of our representative democracy while we get the
Constitutional Amendment I have proposed passed. Both actions are needed to restore balance to our form of government.

What do you think?

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Constitutional Amendment

In recent years our form of government has come under strain because the courts have hijacked the legislative process. This blog is dedicated to restoring one of the principles of our form of government; the supremacy of our social contract over the so called "Supreme Court". Our Constitution is part of the contract that holds our people together. It is a social contract that defines the principles that have kept us free and independent for over 200 years.

The social contract started with the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were simply an extension of this desire to codify what we agreed to in granting this new form of representative democracy power over our lives. The essence of this social contract is respect for and adherence to "the rule of law". The Constitution defines 3 branches; the legislative branch to make law, the executive branch to enforce law and the judicial branch to interpret law.

It was clear when the legislature passed the act that led to "Marbury versus Madison" that there was a need to limit the legislature to adherence to the Constitution. John Marshall was power hungry, but he was given an easy opportunity to expand court power in a just way by the passage of that unjust law. The law in question was an insult to the "rule of law" as expressed in our Constitution since it ignored the rights of individuals contained in the Constitution. It was arguably a Bill of Attainder. It also arguably extended the power to issue a Bill of Mandamus in a fashion that could not be justified by Constitutional powers of congress. The court's "Marbury versus Madison" decision was unanimous because it was so clearly the right decision. Every justice agreed the law being struck was in express conflict with the Constitution. Interestingly, most of the disagreements in the case faded in time, save for the power of the court to rule on the Constitutionality of legislatively passed laws in conflict with the Consitution.

Jefferson opposed the ruling because he saw the inherent risk in one branch claiming it had the sole right to determine the meaning of the Constitution. The idea that only the courts could define the Constitution was potentially demagogic. And so it has become. The courts have hijacked many of the most complex of the social arguments being debated and taken from the legislature the power to have any say. Today any federal judge can subvert the democratic process. Judges rewrite the compromise of laws reflected in our legislative process with impunity and arrogance.

Compromise is the essence of democratically elected representatives passing laws to benefit those who elected them. Judges subvert this compromise process by simply striking out and sometimes changing, not the entire law, but just those parts of the law they dislike. In such an environment, the legislative process has become a joke and elements of society disfavored by a simple majority of the unelected court lose their equal participation in democracy. This is unjust and enrages those so disfavored. It is leading to contempt for our courts.

We must return the balance that for two centuries contributed to the greatness of our nation. The evolving seizure of power by our courts must be ended. This seizure of power, which expanded greatly in the last half of the 20th century, must be reversed. However this reversal of the seizure of power does not mean we should return to the situation before
"Marbury versus Madison".

I believe that the original compromise of "Marbury versus Madison" is the best solution for our nation. In that case, the legislature had so transgressed their appropriate bounds that the entire court unanimously agreed it had to be constrained. The ruling forced the legislature to respect the Constitution when they were enacting laws. We must return to that premise, but only that premise. I believe that the only way the courts should be permitted to rule a law unconstitutional is if the Supreme Court (and only the Supreme Court, not a single judge) unanimously agrees and the entire law as passed by the legislature is struck (the representative democracy compromise it represents) and returned to the legislature to try again. No portion of a law can be by itself removed. No political vote by the Supreme Court shall be allowed. If it is not unanimous it is politics, and must be decided by the legislature.

That is the Constitutional Amendment I propose. What do you think?

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Condi - The Person We Need For America!

Condoleezza Rice is one of the most amazing Americans we have ever seen. World class musician. Champion figure skater. Brilliant educator. Expert on football. Fluent in French and Russian. She is most assuredly a master of English, is tough as nails and a world class debater.

Condoleezza Rice

The following article proves that Condi is impressing people all over the world.

Condoleezza Rice Brings Morality To Realpolitik
Editorial Opinion - Daily Telegraph (U.K.) - 05/02/2005

"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy," she says. "Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."

An expert in political science who is a master of military tactics, she has a command of facts that impresses the heavy weights in both fields. She is known as a quick wit, is well liked generally and thought of as a pleasant if blunt spoken individual.

In 1993 she became the youngest Provost in Stanford history, a post she held for 6 years until she left to support George Bush for President. She succeeded as a conservative in an arena and school that is dominated by liberals. That skill alone is significant.

How she got to that point is amazing. Raised in a segregated society, a close friend was killed in the violence of her youth by the south's segregationist extremists. To endure was not typical, but her record shows what can be accomplished when you are not told "you are a victim and you can't succeed".

A very moral person, Condi is close friend and confidant of President Bush. With hard work and dedication she has acheived an amazing amount already. It seems impossible that anyone could find time to become as accomplished in so many different fields. She is impressive. I nominate her for
President in 2008.