I have a hard time with the far right complaining about "activist judges". They make this complaint because some judges have ruled in favor of the Constitution rather than ruling the way that the far right would like. This prompts people like Newt Gingrich to remark that he would simply ignore judicial rulings that he didn't agree with. Oh, goody.
Well, I would contend that there are truly some activist judges out there. Those ruling completely based upon partisanship (and who is lining their pockets). Take the last two days, just for starters. Yesterday, the Supreme Court basically told the 4th Amendment to take a hike, and ruled that anyone entering jail for any reason may be strip-searched. To be blunt, that means that if you get arrested for not paying your traffic tickets and go to county lockup, they have the right to look up in your anus, your vagina, your mouth, etc just to see if you have contraband or (according to the court) a gang tattoo. (Because everyone knows that gangs put their tattoos in the most visible place - right up their butt). Even though there is no probable cause to think that you might.
Justice Kennedy, on whose shoulders every decision that affects our democracy rests, said that "courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security."
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but for 220+ years, it's been pretty much the other way around. The courts get to second guess the correctional officials, if what they are doing violates the Constitution.
The case actually was about someone who was wrongly arrested on a warrant for not paying a fine (which, by the way was an error - the fine had been paid, so they stuck an innocent man in jail). So not paying a fine gets you strip searched.
Also, not paying parking tickets can get you strip searched. And writing bad checks. And shoplifting a chapstick. And engaging in civil disobedience. Oh, goody.
What other gems are there to discuss? Oh, yes. Today, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, while hearing an appeal on a case where the lower court upheld the Affordable Care Act, decided to take the DOJ attorney to task because President Obama said he was confident that the SCOTUS would uphold the law, and that it would be unprecedented for them to strike down a law that was passed by a majority of both houses of Congress.
Basically, Judge Jerry Smith held a DOJ attorney liable for comments made by someone else (President Obama) and gave her the equivalent of making a disruptive student write classroom standards - a 3 page letter, single spaced stating the DOJ position on judicial review. That had absolutely nothing to do with the case before the court. Nothing. It was a petty, mean, partisan thing for the judge to do. Cementing his place in history as a huge dickwad.
Make sure to read the entire text of the conversation at the link above.
Listen here (audio only):
Little story. When I was in elementary school, my parents were both unable to come to open house one year. My dad was working and my mom was in nursing school and had class that night. The next day, my teacher assigned an essay to me (and another girl) the content of which was to explain why my parents felt something else was more important than open house. Of course, my parents (activists that they were) refused to let me complete the assignment, but the premise is the same. "I don't like that someone thinks their opinion is more important than mine, so I'm going to punish you." It's a ridiculous bullying power play, meant only to belittle and demean the punishee and show the bloated self-importance of the punisher.
The fact that the judge called the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" already tells us what his political leanings are, and how he will rule without even hearing the case before him. Also, if you ask me, and you didn't, but you get to hear my opinion anyway, cause it's my blog..., just the fact that the DOJ attorney didn't, in that long pause at the end there, say what she was thinking, which I'm sure was, "Are you out of your fucking mind?!?!?!", should get her some serious brownie points. Because me? I was sure thinking it. Likely along with every other person in the room, save the other judges.
Let's not even get into the whole "activist judge" debate. No, actually, let's. I'm pretty sure that Romney, Santorum, Gingrich have all complained about "activist judges", and by that, they mean any judge who doesn't agree with them. They are actually complaining about judges who are interpreting the law according to the constitution.
Too bad for them that they don't like that the Constitution guarantees us all equal protection.
And too bad for us that they have the ear of the media and all the uneducated idiots in America. Oh, and their set of activist judges.
UPDATED: Apparently, Jon Stewart agrees with me. He did a segment on this on his show last night.
And even Greta Van Susteren agrees. And you know when Fux News agrees with me, the apocolypse is imminent.
No comments:
Post a Comment