Tag: Judges

Closing Thought–15May18

There are many examples of how government kicks the can down the road.. …on spending, budgets, immigration ans war…..but the one part of the government that you do not expect waffling is from the judiciary….

Well we cannot depend on them to do the right thing…

A while back a lawsuit was brought forth challenging the legality of the so-called war on ISIS……

Federal Appeals Court judges are hoping to continue to dodge ruling on a lawsuit in which a soldier challenged the legality of the unauthorized war on ISIS. The judges now are asking the lawyers to tell them whether or not the lawsuit even matters anymore.

Capt. Nathan Michael Smith filed the lawsuit back in 2016, claiming the war is illegal. The judges say that now, since Smith will be leaving the military later in May, his own personal interest in the case is essentially gone. Moreover, they argue that the war seems to be wrapping up.

Of course, Smith filed this case way back in 2016, and had to appeal after the first judge refused to rule on it. The current panel took the case in October, and has effectively just sat on the case since then. Now, they too seem set to refuse to rule on the case.

There are, of course, serious legal reasons to challenge unauthorized US wars. Federal judges are so unwilling to rule on these questions, however, as to make the courts effectively useless as a check on power.

(antiwar.com)

I see the cowardice of the Legislative Branch is nothing exceptional….it also extends to the Judicial Branch as well.

In other words we have a government of cowards from the Executive to the Legislative to Judiciary….

We can be so proud of what we have created over the past couple of decades…….a government of do-nothing toads.

My Tuesday postings is a wrap….I can go now and call Hannity for some sage advice. (Sorry I could not keep a straight face after that statement)

Gotta bounce…do stop by later tomorrow…..be well, be safe….chuq

Best Justice Money Can Buy

Already the interest in the latest war is tarting to wane…..so I will bow to social convention and start posting on stuff other than the Middle East……

I seems that in some states candidates for judge cannot accept campaign funds……some don’t like that and now they are trying to get SCOTUS to weigh in on this issue……and with our court batch of judges on the court….they could possibly get their way…….

Mother Jones is reporting……..

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could overturn 30 states’ bans on judges personally seeking campaign contributions. In Lanell Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, a county-level judicial candidate was publicly reprimanded by the Florida Supreme Court in May and forced to pay $1,860 in court costs for signing a fundraising letter during the 2009 election, according to her petition. The court also rejected her argument that the decision violated her First Amendment rights, saying that the state’s ban is constitutional “because it promotes … the integrity of the judiciary and [maintains] the public’s confidence in an impartial judiciary.”

As Williams-Yulee notes, this issue is quite common in that there are hundreds of judicial elections each year. In 2011 and 2012 there were high court elections in 35 states that contested 75 open seats, along with an additional 243 intermediate appellate court races in 29 states. These races are becoming increasingly more expensive: During just those two years, state high court, appellate and lower court judicial candidates raised more than $110 million, according to the National Institute On Money In State Politics (state judicial candidates raised just $83 million total in the 1990s). Justice At Stake, a nonpartisan judicial election watchdog group, points out that 20 states have surpassed records for judicial election spending since 2000. Independent spending on judicial elections is also booming, with more than $24 million being spent in the 2011-12 cycle compared to just $2.7 million a decade earlier.

May I suggest the Americans worry more about this turn of events than the questions before the Court now….this will have long lasting consequences if SCOTUS rules the way I thin they will….if this happens all agendas will be open for partisan BS……

Arrest The SOBs!

I wish I could write something good about GOP candidates….I really do…..but they just cannot keep their mouths shut long enough for us non-GOP types to find something positive.

As a historian, I really would like a historian to be in the fore front of politics, but I wish in vain….we do have a historian running but he is such a douche that I could find nothing good to ever say…his historic fats are steeped in revisionism…..he sees history the way he wants to see it and NOT from anything near reality….

Yes, I am talking about Gingrich!

His latest f*ck up is about judges…..he said…..

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute.
I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: If you had to.

SCHIEFFER: You would?

GINGRICH: Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word “benediction” and “invocation”? Because before you could — because I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.
Now clearly since the congress has….

SCHIEFFER: What if he didn’t come? What if he said no thank you I’m not coming?

GINGRICH: Well, that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not — the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. As a general rule they show up.

Let me help out a bit…….Article III is designed to guarantee independence from people like Gingrich so that judges can rule in favor of the Constitution and, yes, at times take positions disliked by the majority.

Scary, apparently Gingrich does not grasp the concept of three separate branches of government and he is a historian!

Again, I apologize for I really want there to be a descent candidate….but you guys are soooooo SCREWED!

Sotomayor Gets Nod

Pres. Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nomimee for the Supreme Court.  In case you have not heard,  she is a woman and a hispanic which if confirmed would make her an oddity in American history.

In the weeks to come you will hear all sorts of things about Sotomayor, both pro and con, as everyone tries to make a move to position themselves in the converstaion in the nomination process.  Of course, the “floating fat man” Rush has already started his attacks and they will most likely get louder and nastier.

I even heard a conservative call her a liberal activist judge….thinking……why is it the liberals are the only activists; those on the right are seldom called that…why?

I am sure that everyone interested will be gagging from the exposure when her vote comes up in the Congress.  We will even know her fav topping on pizza by the end of the process.  Sit back and enjoy the ride…it will be sickening at best!