Friday, July 27, 2007

Barletta Team Vows Appeal

by L.A. Tarone - July 27th 2007 - Hazeltine Standard Speaker

“The judge bent over backwards to find fault with the city,” [Kris Korbach, attorney for Hazeltine] said.

[Judge] Munley’s opinion that the ordinance upset a balance between illegal and legal immigration and that it might harm foreign relations are other examples of blatant activism, Kobach said.

“The judge is saying City Council should have considered how other countries felt before they acted,” Kobach said. “That’s a perfect example of activism.”

This Judge is proving the premise that this is not law, but Judicial power. He grants special privileges to the illegals that no citizen could ever expect to be granted to citizens. The very premise that some people are above the law is an insult to the concept of justice. How can these judges not see how obscene their arguments are? Talk about contempt of court.

Immigrant Law Voided

by Michael Rubinkam - July 26th, 2007 -

A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton's tough anti-immigration law, which has been emulated by cities around the country.

The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

U.S. District Judge James Munley declared it unconstitutional Thursday and voided it based on evidence and testimony from a nine-day trial held in March.

The city will almost certainly appeal.

Hazleton's Republican mayor pushed for the laws last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. Mayor Lou Barletta argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming police and schools.

It is certainly the federal governments job to protect our nation from an invasion of illegal aliens. What is bizarre is this Judges argument that no law that hurts an illegal immigrants right to do as he wishes can be passed.

If an illegal immigrant kills someone, is he entitled to do so since he could not be here to kill someone if the federal government had not allowed him to be here?

By what asinine logic do these judges claim that violation of other laws to stop them from getting government aid, or run up rents, or damaging society and its citizens in numerous other ways, are unconstitutional because they are here and thus have the rights of legal residents?

That equates to the bizarre argument that these illegals have a Consitutional right to invade our nation.

Monday, July 23, 2007

The Sky's Still Up There

by Jan Crawford Greenburg - July 20th, 2007 - ABC News

. . . it’s been outright baffling to listen to some conservatives try to argue the Court didn’t do all that much.


As strange as some of the conservative reaction may be, though, it’s the outrage on the Left that’s most striking.


Thai flatly declares that “in one questionable decision after another,” the Court this term “made it dramatically more difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary Americans to have their day in court.”

Difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary Americans to have their day in court? With apologies to Justice Scalia, this assertion cannot be taken seriously.

This is a well written and fairly balanced assessment of the cases decided this year by our unelected tyrants on the SCOTUS (Superme Court of the United States). However I think Ms. Greenburg missed the point of the left's screeching attacks. She seems flabbergasted how the left can go balistic on cases where the vote was 8-1 and 7-2. She assumes the leftists who are getting so exercised at the court are concerned with how the conservatives voted. In reality this exaggerated reaction is intended to intimidate the leftist judges who are not voting as the left expects them.

The intimidation of their own practice is typical of the left. Any black person who considers voting for a Republican is publicly denouced as an uncle tom, oreo and often much worse. It will be angry, public and outrageous. The reason is to keep people in line. The left has long since abandoned any pretense to logic. The neo-conservative democrats who were run out of the Democrat party correctly identified that the left wing anti-American foreign policy was wrong. It did not matter. If anything the left is more incensed at a true believer who dares to stray even a little than those on the right who they assume will be wrong all the time.

What Ms Greenburg's article does point out is how political the court has become. Nothing is decided by the "rule of law". Everything today is about "the rule of judges". The left plans they will be liberals. Even the smallest move towards the "rule of law" gets irrational condemnation.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Scooter Libby Should Never
Have Been Prosecuted

by George Jonas - July 21st, 2007 - National Post

-- when sophisticated people lie, as Ed Koch pointed out in a recent column, they tend to say "I don't remember" -- but maybe Libby tried to shield an actual source. In either case, he didn't leak the information. The leak came from Armitage, as Fitzgerald knew. If anyone was misleading the grand jury, it was the prosecutor.

What's more, the leak may not have been a crime. In law, a "covert operative" is someone who has served outside the United States within the last five years, and whose identity is classified information, which the government is taking active measures to conceal. This definition, apparently, never fit Ms. Plame. Also, for such disclosure to be a crime it needs to be intentionally made by someone with authorized access to classified information, which lets off Novak, and possibly Armitage as well.

In any case, Libby had nothing to do with it. At worst, he lied to officials who had no business questioning him in the first place about a non-crime they knew he didn't commit. It's grandstanding prosecutors who are politicizing justice, not Bush. I wouldn't jail Libby for 30 hours, but assuming he deserved 30 months for what he did, Fitzgerald should be looking at 30 years.

This miscarriage of justice has been well documented already, including here on this blog. However I keep hearing people, especially democrats, insisting Libby was engaged in a cover up and got caught. This is a new lie being perpetrated on the American people. If our courts allow this conviction to stand, it is just one more step towards elimination of justice in our nation. The rule of judges is leading to a system so corrupt and evil that it seems more and more likely to be ended with the blood of a civil war. A loss of confidence in the courts is the most serious loss of credibility a government can withstand. It leads inexorably to tyranny and dictatorship.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Ex-CIA Agent's Suit Against
Top Officials Is Dismissed

by Josh Gerstein - July 20th, 2007 - The New York Sun

In a 41-page ruling yesterday, Judge John Bates concluded that the lawsuit was fatally flawed even if Ms. Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, could prove the existence of a high-level conspiracy to punish her for Mr. Wilson's criticism of the White House's statements on Iraq.

When they filed their suit a year ago, the couple claimed their constitutional rights were violated by Mr. Cheney, his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., and a top White House political adviser, Karl Rove. In September, after it emerged that a former deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, triggered the first published mention of Ms. Plame's CIA connection, the couple added Mr. Armitage as a defendant in the case. "Obviously, we're very, very pleased," an attorney for Libby, Alex Bourelly, told The New York Sun yesterday. Libby's defenders and other administration allies have deemed the lawsuit to be a political vendetta.


Judge Bates's ruling rested primarily on the grounds that, while Congress has established a legal mechanism for addressing leaks of personal information, Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson did not avail themselves of it.

The arrogance of this couple continues. Joe Wilson launched a political attack on the President and his policies and then tried to hide the fact that his wife had arranged for his involvement while she was in the CIA. He wanted to insist on the truthfullness of attacks that are believed lies by many . . . . while denying the ability of anyone he attacked to respond to his attack. Any defense that did not point out his wife's actions had to ignore his claim he was sent on an investigation by the Vice President, something that was completely false. He was in fact sent at the request of his wife who, like him, was a democrat partisan who happened to work at the CIA.

The partisan nature of this attack is verified by the following. The Wilson's made claims in their filing in this case that were disproved by Fitzgerald investigation where he went after Scooter Libby. Though they added Armitage to their case, a man who was a political enemy of the President, they failed to remove both Rove and Cheney who it was clear were never involved in any of the actions that led to the publicity of the CIA status of Plame.

The essence of the Judges ruling is that it is well settled law that you cannot deny someone in policy positions the right to defend those policies just because you feel that to do so might violate someone else's rights. Especially in this case where, if the wife's rights were violated, it was under a criminal law that would have to reach the level of "guilt beyond resonable doubt" and which the Wilson's never tried to pursue. The Wilson's filed the lawsuit not under the applicable criminal law, but under civil law, trying to gain two illegal advantages. First they wanted to prove guilt under the easier civil law "preponderance of the evidence" level for a criminal wrong (something not permitted in our system). Second they wanted to obtain civil damamges not possible under the criminal law either.

The Judge threw out both attempts based on well settled law.

text of the Judges Ruling is available here.

The Wilson's are making a fortune on appearances based on the infamy of this case. To keep their fame in the public eye they are now insisting they will take it to the Supreme Court.

It is clear that the Wilson's had the misfortune to get a conservative judge who would not abuse justice like the judge in the Scooter Libby case. It is frightening to realize that the ruling here reflected only the political position of one judge. You can NEVER be sure what an American Court will rule since the "rule of law" has been abandoned and we now operate under the "rule of judges". Even a ruling that is just still proves the corrupt nature of our current courts.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Allergic US Employee Sues
To Ban Perfume At Work

by Staff - July 5th, 2007 - AFP

An office worker for the US city of Detroit is suing for her colleagues to be banned from wearing perfume which gives her such severe headaches, nausea and coughing fits that she must leave work.

This used to be a free country. A nation where each person could pursue happiness on their own. However it is becoming a nation where no one has any rights. The courts are making sure that everyone else gets to make you live the way they want to make you live.

You are not permitted to be free from allergies if anyone else has allergies. The other persons allergies are your fault. And you must stop wearing the perfume or deodorant of your choice to accomodate everyone else's allergies.

I am allergic to body odor. It makes me gag. I worked in France where no one will use deodorant and it was nauseating. However unless you are willing to sue, you must put up with other people's problems and your problems mean nothing. Only lawsuit happy scum have any rights in America.

Welcome to the rule of judges.