Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

* Cheap Shot Justice

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal Los Angeles - March 17, 2001 ____________________________________________________ Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 17, 2001
    • 0 Attachment

      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles - March 17, 2001
      ____________________________________________________
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
      ____________________________________________________
      For a beautiful navy blue T-shirt with "J.A.I.L." on the back and www.jail4judges.org large and visible over the pocket, imprinted in a bright yellow-gold lettering, send your check payable to J.A.I.L. for $11.95 plus $4 S&H. (Discounts on volume quantities.) Wear them to your next courthouse function and watch the reaction.

      Jewish World Review
      by Thomas Sowell
      Feb. 15, 2001

      Cheap Shot Justice


      http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- WHILE giving a talk in far-off
      Australia on February 1st, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
      Ginsburg may have thought it was safe to take a cheap shot at a fellow
      American back home. Nor was she restrained by the fact that what she
      said was a lie.

      Back in 1997, Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said, "when judges
      exercise powers not delegated to them by the Constitution, impeachment
      is a proper tool." He cited as an example, a judge who ordered a tax
      increase in Kansas City. "Do judges have the authority to raise taxes?"
      he asked. "Of course not."

      In Australia, however, Justice Ginsburg declared: "Tom DeLay has
      advocated the impeachment of judges who render unpopular decisions that, in his view, do not follow the law." She added, "Mr. DeLay is not a
      lawyer but, I am told, an exterminator by profession."

      Perhaps an academic audience at the University of Melbourne law school
      might find it amusing to disdain a non-academic, non-lawyer who dared to
      question one of the anointed, but anyone whose home has been threatened
      by termites might have a better appreciation of someone who did useful
      and vital work in the real world, even if not in the rarefied atmosphere of academia.

      Justice Ginsburg's disdain was not unrelated to the very problem that
      Congressman DeLay complained of, arrogant over-reaching by judges who
      impose their own presumptions on others, while claiming to be enforcing
      the law.

      This issue is much bigger than Justice Ginsburg and Congressman DeLay
      put together.

      Over the past half century, far too many judges -- including justices of the Supreme Court -- have "interpreted" laws to mean the direct opposite of what the written words of those laws plainly said. You don't need a law degree to know that, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbad group
      preferences and quotas, Justice William Brennan's "interpretation" of it 15 years later in the Weber case to permit group preferences and quotas was an exercise in raw judicial power, based on sheer gall and a defiance of anybody to do anything about it. One of the dissenting justices likened Justice's Brennan's evasion of the law to the great escapes of Houdini.

      It is not a question whether group preferences and quotas are popular or
      unpopular, good policy or bad policy. It is a question whether courts of
      law become arenas for arbitrary exercises of power -- the very antithesis of law.

      The people of this country have long had differing opinions on quotas,
      abortion, pornography and many other controversial issues. That is why
      we have elections at all levels of government and differing laws from one state or locality to another. But those who think themselves so far above ordinary people that they ought to impose their own opinions on the unwashed masses have supported judges who turn these political questions into constitutional issues without any basis in the Constitution.

      At the heart of the Constitution is a separation of powers, which limits each branch of government and allows other branches of government to stop it from over-stepping its bounds. Without that, we are at the mercy of whoever happens to be the most ruthless in grabbing power. That is why impeachment has to be a remedy.

      According to Justice Ginsburg, "casual use of impeachment would disserve not only the federal judiciary but also the constitutional principles
      that have seen the United States through its worst crises."

      Who said anything about "casual" use of impeachment? What federal judge
      has ever been casually impeached? Even where there were charges of gross
      judicial corruption by bribery -- the impeachment of federal judge Alcee L. Hastings a decade ago -- the Congress took weeks of lengthy testimony, evidence and argument before removing Judge Hastings from the bench. Other judges have continued to draw their salaries while behind bars for violations of the law because they had not been impeached.

      The danger is not in "casual" removal of judges but in casual lying, such as Justice Ginsburg has engaged in, not only in this attempt to distort the issue of impeachment, but also in other instances of distorting the Constitution to impose her own personal ideology as "the law of the land." Nor is she the only one.

      Nothing is more dangerous than the idea that some public officials are  above the law. If they are, then we don't have law -- and we won't have
      freedom much longer either.


      In my experiences regarding the federal judicial disciplinary procedures of §372, no matter what ethical violations one complained about, it was always converted into a complaint about a judicial "decision." Such was the case when I filed complaint with the Judicial Council about the Ninth Circuit Judges conducting unilateral and secret contacts with the U.S. Attorney regarding my case, who was, at the time, representing my opponents, the defendants, an act strictly forbidden in black and white of the Canon of Ethics. That was interpreted as assailing a judicial determination, and thus, beyond judicial misconduct proceedings of §372.
       
      What U.S. Justice Ruth Ginsburg has done is the same as interpreting armed robbery as not being a criminal act, but merely a dispute about money.
      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      E-Groups may sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
       
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
       
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.