Category: Constitution: “Men in Black”

Kick ’em Out!

More like this, please. There’s no Constitutional exception allowing your God-given rights to be curtailed in government buildings.

The commission, with no remaining options left, decided to do what any decent landlord would do when faced with problem tenants: they evicted them.

At a meeting last week, the commission voted unanimously to kick the courts out of the building and relocate them to other county-owned buildings that are either not currently being used or will soon be vacated.…

Stories like this are a good reminder that we should never accept an anti-gun situation as something beyond our ability to change.

Source: Nevada County Evicts Anti-gun Judges From County Government Building

 

Bar association threatens freedom

A conservative judge running for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court says the state bar association has threatened him with a “Not Recommended” rating if he doesn’t fill out its “political” questionnaire on diversity and LGBT issues.
These questions are intrusive, divisive, and racist. Would you answer these? I reject the very premises of the questions and would file them in the garbage can. “Inclusion” is not important. In fact, “inclusion” violates freedom of association.
 
If these various types of “people” aren’t included it’s for good reason. Either they want to be left alone, like most normal people, or they are moral reprobates who should be excluded, if not jailed, for their deviant crimes (looking at you, LGBTPxyzwtf crowd).
 
I used to think that bar associations were groups of professionals…
 
• “How important is it to you to have inclusion from people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?
• “What efforts, if any, have you made in your community to include people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?”
 

Horowitz: While Americans are locked up without judicial review, courts grant new rights to criminal aliens!

Let’s review the outcomes from the COVID-19 crisis:

  • Most sweeping restrictions, surveillance, and confinement of Americans indefinitely without due process in the history of America? Check!
  • Endless welfare, debt, and spending? Check!
  • Mass release of criminals? Check!
  • More foreign workers as a time of record unemployment? Check!
  • More rights for illegal aliens to come and remain here? Check!

Why is it that every policy outcome from this crisis is a long-standing liberal priority, even when the several outcomes contradict the rationale underlying some of the others?

Source: Horowitz: While Americans are locked up without judicial review, courts grant new rights to criminal aliens!

Federal judge goes nuclear on chief justice and conservatives on U.S. Supreme Court – WND

The face of an idiot

This is Federal ‘judge’ Lynn Adelman who says:

“Rather, the Court’s hard-right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy,…”

People like this on the courts are dangerous and a threat to the Constitution. This judge is so uneducated and ill-informed that he thinks the United States is a democracy. It isn’t a democracy, for which we should all thank God. It is a representative Republic. A Republic that protects the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Go back to law school, ‘judge’ Adelman. Or get a copy of the U.S. Constitution and READ IT!

As for the Supreme Court ‘undermining American democracy’, THAT’S IT’S JOB! SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not some imaginary ‘democracy.’

Source: Federal judge goes nuclear on chief justice and conservatives on U.S. Supreme Court – WND

SCOTUS allows Miami to sue BANKS for its economic and social woes

But it gets worse. How is there standing in this case? Did individual borrowers who were black or Latino sue the banks and demonstrate evidence of discriminatory practices in violation of the FHA? Not a chance. It was the city government of Miami that sued the banks under dubious accusations of discrimination. Where is the injury-in-fact? How is the city a party to a “dispute” over private mortgages?

Are you ready? The argument is essentially as follows: Racist banks offered mortgages to too many black and Hispanic borrows who couldn’t afford them, which led to default, which led to foreclosures, which led to vacant houses, which brought down the values of the adjacent homes, which led to reduced property taxes, which led to more criminal and social problems, which strained the local services (fire, police, inspectors, debris collectors, etc.).

You see, had the evil banks not insidiously lent to black and Hispanic borrowers who couldn’t pay (at the coercion of government), Miami would not have gangs, drugs, poverty, and urban blight. It would be a utopia.

Another abominable, idiotic decision by John Roberts.

Source: SCOTUS allows Miami to sue BANKS for its economic and social woes

The Coadjuvancy of Church and State

The modern notion that the separation of these powers implies opposition or incompatibility is a gross misrepresentation of the founders beliefs and intentions, imposed on the nation by a cabal of hyper-partisan Democrat secularists led by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a virulent anti-Catholic and one-time member of the Ku Klux Klan), along with his co-conspirator Lyndon Baines Johnson, author of the “Johnson Amendment” that purported to ban church involvement in politics.

Black wrote the majority opinion in the 1947 US Supreme Court case Everson v Board of Education which redefined the separation of church and state as a barrier to church/state cooperation – reversing over 150 years of legal precedent in which it had been recognized as a facilitator of church influence in government. It was this early and egregious example of judicial activism in Everson that shifted America from following the Judeo-Christian presuppositions of the founders to the Secular Humanist presuppositions of Cultural Marxism: preventing government from recognizing the authority of God in our law and history.

Read the whole article.

Source: The Coadjuvancy of Church and State

Related: Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Kritocracy Then Chaos

To continue the metaphor, the virus has jumped the quarantine and now the entire system is showing signs of infection. For two years the Trump administration has been plagued with federal judges who just make up rulings out of thin air. In many cases they are ruling on behalf of plaintiffs who have no standing in the court. In other cases, they are simply making up legal theories so bizarre they would get a first year law student dismissed from school on mental health grounds. The Federal bench is in revolt against the rule of law.

In this particular case, the law is clear. It’s not just US law, but international law. There is a legal process for applying for asylum. No country is required to accept anyone who does not follow the procedures. US law is crystal clear on the issue, yet this judge is making up law that is direct conflict with black letter law. This is no less deranged than if the judge stood up, stripped off his clothes and declared he is an invisible chicken and that everyone in the court must cluck in worship to him. This judge is not mentally fit.

Source: Kritocracy Then Chaos

The post-constitutional world of Judge Richard Posner – The Washington Post

I would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we, who are judges rather than members of Congress, are imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of “sex discrimination” that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted. This is something courts do fairly frequently to avoid statutory obsolescence and concomitantly to avoid placing the entire burden of updating old statutes on the legislative branch…

So says the so-called ‘judge’ Richard Posner.

Posner’s theory of statutory interpretation, then, is really a theory of judicial usurpation of Congress’s Article I powers. Article I, let’s recall, states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” So yes, as a rule the “entire burden” of updating old statutes is indeed on the legislative branch. Congress has consistently declined the opportunity to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes under Title VII, and judges have no authority to exercise legislative authority in Congress’s place.

Source: The post-constitutional world of Judge Richard Posner – The Washington Post