November 29, 2007
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is blocking the nomination of former GOP Rep. James E. Rogan to the federal bench, citing his lead role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton as one of her concerns.Her stance is angering Rogan allies who contend that Boxer is reneging on her support for a bipartisan commission set up in California that recommends judicial nominees to the White House. Boxer disputes that.
"U.S. Rep. Rogan was one of the most enthusiastic backers of impeachment — he thought President Clinton had committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate certainly disagreed with that conclusion, as did Sen. Boxer," said Boxer's spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz.
Boxer also believes that Rogan's strongly conservative positions on gun control, abortion and other issues make him "out of step with California," Ravitz said.
Now just a minute -- since when are federal judges supposed to be "in step" with the politics of a certain state. I thought the expectation was for them to be "in step" with the Constitution of the United States. Is its Boxer's contention that we must impose a political litmus test on federal judges -- and, in the event that a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, that only conservative jurists "in step" with Texas be appointed to the bench in this very red state?
But more disturbing is her attempt to rehash the impeachment issue. I'd like to like Senator Hillary Clinton to speak out publicly on this issue.
MORE AT Michelle Malkin, The Sleuth
Posted by: Greg at
11:32 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.
, November 24, 2007
In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District's near-total ban on handgun possession. That 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Laurence Silberman, found that when the Second Amendment spoke of the "right of the people," it meant the right of "individuals," and not some "collective right" held only by state governments or the National Guard.
That stirring conclusion was enough to prompt the D.C. government to declare Judge Silberman outside "the mainstream of American jurisprudence" in its petition to the Supreme Court. We've certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it's beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say.
Perhaps the problem here is not one of judicial philosophy or textual interpretation. Maybe it is simply an issue of bad lighting. With all the stringent efforts to find liberal ideology hidden in constitutional shadows, penumbras, and the emanations thereof, perhaps the actual text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have become obscured by the tripods, power lines, and lighting apparatus needed to discern putative rights, like those to an abortion or sodomy, that not even the framers of these masterpieces of liberty knew they were protecting when they wrote and adopted the documents over two centuries ago.
Posted by: Greg at
04:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.
November 21, 2007
The justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the new case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The question they posed is whether the provisions of the statute “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”
Now this could be a very significant in a couple of ways. On the one hand, it appears to be a very broad approach to the issue of how far the Second Amendment goes in protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, it could also be provide a cloak for limiting the case to the specific status of Washington, DC only as a federal enclave not a part of any state. I'm inclined to believe that the court will examine and decide based upon the former, not the latter, but there is always the possibility of again "sidestepping" the bigger issue until a similar suit comes out of a state.
Secondly, I'm disturbed by this quote from the city's mayor, which potentially shows a contempt for the Constitution virtually unknown in American history.
"It's the will of the people of the District of Columbia that has to be respected," Fenty said at a news conference with D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer and several D.C. Council members. "We should have the right to make our own decisions."
Were the District of Columbia a state, I'd have to call that a states rights argument. Indeed, it is rather similar to those arguments made by defenders of racial segregation, in that it appears to put majority rule above rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That argument was wrong in Mississippi in 1957, and it is wrong in the nation's capital in 2007. What's more, I'm sure Mayor Fenty knows that in his heart of hearts -- after all, he would not make that argument, for example, with regard to any of the rest of the Bill of Rights because he would be laughed out of court.
And then there is this original rationale for the law, one that is so absurd on its face that I cannot believe that it met the laugh test at the time it was adopted.
Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Excuse me? Self-defense is not a legitimate use of a handgun? Heck, last time I visited the city every cop was carrying a handgun -- proof positive that the city itself does not believe the stated rationale for the handgun ban.
Of course, as I noted in my earlier post, the best course of action would be for the Supreme Court to construe the phrase "the right of the people" in precisely the way it does in cases involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights where it is used.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, MyHTPC, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
01:08 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 5 kb.
November 20, 2007
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
The clear historical context of the Second Amendment says that it does. So do the words of those who adopted it. And given the construction of the amendment, the right must be seen as an individual one, just like the similarly constructed "right of the people to peaceably assemble" and the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" clearly protect individual rights. The parallel structure makes this conclusion unavoidable – and even if there is room for reasonable limitations upon the exercise of these rights, the DC law goes far beyond it.
Posted by: Greg at
01:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
November 19, 2007
We know from their past decisions how all of the current justices interpret Roe v. Wade, yet they are not precluded from sitting on future cases involving abortion. Why shouldn't we also learn how Supreme Court nominees view that decision and other important cases? If all nominees were expected to answer these questions, the White House would no longer seek out "stealth" nominees whose views are largely unknown.To protect the independence and autonomy of the courts, questions addressed to specific pending or future cases should be avoided. But there is no good reason for nominees to refuse to state how they would have voted in cases the Supreme Court has already decided. The facts, briefs, and oral arguments from those cases are all a matter of public record. Questions about decided cases should be at the heart of confirmation hearings, because they provide the most concrete information available about what kind of justice the nominee will be. Judges decide real cases. To be able to evaluate nominees in a meaningful way, the Senate and the public need to know how a nominee is likely to decide them.
Of course, in Kennedy's eyes, refusal to adhere to a liberal interpretation would render one unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, thereby negating the outcome of presidential elections that produce winners of a differing political philosophy. And it also guarantees "respect" for decisions that are wrongly decided -- for just as surely as support for Roe would be a litmus test today, I have no doubt that in 1950 we would have seen support for Plessy v. Ferguson -- by that time a precedent that was a full half-century old -- as mandatory for confirmation in the eyes of the Democrat majority in the US Senate. While that certainly would have avoided the myriad disruptions of American life caused by the overturning of that decision in Brown v. Board of Education, it also would have continued a manifestly unjust system of racial segregation.
Of course, Kennedy also wants to overturn long-standing principles of executive privilege, attorney-client confidentiality and the like in his effort to pack the Court with liberal ideologues. In his contempt for the Constitution, he would overturn two centuries of confirmation practices and seek to elevate ideology over competence as the standard for confirmation. Rather than remove partisanship and the politics of destruction from the confirmation process, Kennedy would make them permanent features, so that his actions in the Bork and Thomas confirmation processes would become the standard by which all future confirmations would be carried out.
Posted by: Greg at
11:04 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.
November 11, 2007
The federal court employee at the center of a sexual misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent first went to her boss about the judge allegedly touching her inappropriately in 2003 — four years before the March incident that led to his reprimand by the 5th Circuit judicial council.In mid-2003, case manager Cathy McBroom told her supervisor that the judge lured her into an office used as an exercise room and groped her, according to interviews with McBroom's friends, her mother and other sources.
But her female supervisor advised that McBroom could lose her job if she made a formal complaint, and no further action apparently was taken.
The alleged assault in March prompted McBroom to request an immediate transfer and file a judicial misconduct complaint. It resulted in a rare reprimand of the judge for sexual harassment and "inappropriate behavior" toward other employees.
* * * This is McBroom's account of what happened in March as told to friends and her mother in conversation and in written notes:
McBroom was summoned to the judge's chambers on Friday, March 23, at about 3 p.m.
Her hands were full of legal papers when the judge — a former high school athlete who is more than 6 inches taller and at least 100 pounds heavier — asked for a hug.
She told him she didn't think that was appropriate, but reluctantly approached.
The judge grabbed McBroom, pulled up her blouse and her bra and put his mouth on her breast. Then, Kent forced her head down toward his crotch.
As McBroom struggled, Kent kept telling the married mother of three what he wanted to do to her in words too graphic to publish. The papers fell to the floor. The pet bulldog Kent kept in his chambers began to bark.
The incident was interrupted by the sound of footsteps from another staff member in the corridor, and the judge loosened his grip. As she left, the judge said McBroom was a good case manager and then made suggestions about engaging in a sexual act.
McBroom ran out crying.
Terrible stuff. As one local columnist writes, this is not sexual harassment -- it is sexual assault.
Some folks are calling for impeachment.
I regret that I cannot, despite my disgust with the conduct in question.
After all, precedent indicates that the conduct alleged to have been committed is not an offense for which an individual should be removed by impeachment.
You disagree? Let me toss out some names.
Paula Jones.
Juanita Broderick.
Kathleen Willey.
Monica Lewinski.
The accusations related to these women included sex with a subordinate, unwanted sexual conduct, unwanted sexual suggestions, and sexual assault. Impeachment proceedings were brought against the perpetrator of those acts. The US Senate determined that the offenses, which were clearly proven, did not merit removal from office as high crimes or misdemeanors. And thus Bill Clinton was permitted to remain in office, on the basis that the charges were just about sex.
So tell me, how does the case of Judge Kent really differ in substance? It doesn't. To remove him from office would be to commit a grave injustice against him, by applying a different standard to him than is applied to officers of the executive branch.
Either that, or it would require the United States Senate to admit that it was wrong when it refused to remove Bill Clinton from the presidency less than a decade ago.
Although on the other hand, from a purely partisan perspective it could be quite fun to watch this impeachment proceeding play out in the US Senate. After all, it would require several Democrats currently seeking the White House to take a stand on whether the sexual abuse of subordinates is morally and legally wrong, and merits removal from office. Having defended her husband to the hilt, wouldn't you love to see how Senator Hillary Clinton handled a Kent impeachment trial, and how she would vote?
Democrats set the standard for impeachment on sexual misconduct. Now they need to live with it -- or concede that they were wrong to put politics before principle in 1999, and that they are therefore unfit to govern America.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, , Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
07:27 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 863 words, total size 8 kb.
November 07, 2007
The wife of executed killer Michael Richard filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday accusing Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of causing the inmate's Sept. 25 lethal injection.Marsha Richard of Houston claims Keller had no authority to prevent what would have been a successful appeal to stay her husband's execution.
The lawsuit says Keller violated Michael Richard's due process rights when she ordered the court clerk's office to close promptly at 5 p.m. on Sept. 25 before his lawyers could file an appeal. Houston attorney David Dow had asked for more time after having computer problems.
The suit names Keller in her individual and official capacity, as well as other unnamed defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Excuse me -- Michael Richard was a scum-sucking murdering bastard who caused his own death by his life of crime, having been duly convicted by a jury of his peers and had every appeal rejected. There was no chance of his death sentence being overturned. The only question was when, not if, justice was going to be served -- and even if the appeal had been successful, in the end the only question would be one of HOW the sentence would have been carried out.
Besides, Keller acted appropriately under the law and the procedures in place at the time -- as was shown by the Supreme Court's unwillingness to take up the issue and stop the execution. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Richard didn't see fit to include the justices of the US Supreme Court who refused to grant a stay of execution after Judge Keller properly rejected the appeal when Michael's Richard's lawyers didn't meet the filing deadline.
Dismiss this suit, assess Marsha Richard for all court costs and legal fees for those she sued, and sanction the lawyers for this frivolous suit.
And I'm sure I speak for most Americans when I say that I don't give a rat's ass if murderers suffer a bit while being executed, given the lack of regard they showed for the lives and sufferings of their victims. But if lethal injection of a drug cocktail is a constitutional no-no based upon speculation of suffering, I'm all for the lethal injection of lead at high velocity -- or public hanging in the county where the crime took place. Especially since any reading of the original intent of the Eighth Amendment will show that the founders did not consider the latter to be cruel and unusual punishment, as it was the preferred form of execution in their day.
Posted by: Greg at
11:15 PM
| Comments (273)
| Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.
November 01, 2007
It doesnÂ’t matter if she is a prostitute by trade.
Why doesnÂ’t this idiot judge understand that?
A judge in Philadelphia has come under fire for a controversial ruling in which she reduced charges so that a man accused of raping a prostitute at gunpoint faced only robbery charges for "theft of services."Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni earlier this month dismissed rape and sexual assault charges against Dominique Gindraw, who is accused of forcing a prostitute at gunpoint to have sex with him and several other men. Deni left intact charges of armed robbery for theft of services against Gindraw.
Prosecuting Gindraw for rape, the judge said in a subsequent newspaper interview "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped."
The decision — and Deni's subsequent comments to a local newspaper — prompted about 40 complaints from around the country to the local bar association, said executive director Ken Shear, as well as a campaign by women's groups to encourage people to vote against Deni when she is up for reelection Tuesday
By the way – theft of service is what you get charged with if you have an illegal cable hook-up. Forced sex at gunpoint is no more serious than stealing HBO and Showtime?
How can one argue that forced sex at gunpoint isnÂ’t rape? Especially since it meets the definition of rape under Pennsylvania law? That the judge cannot understand that is an indication not only of her unfitness for the bench, but of her fundamental lack of decency as a human being.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:02 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 4 kb.
61 queries taking 0.461 seconds, 444 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
