Judicial Corruption : The Politicians in Black Robes Syndrome

[Contumacious]

Judicial Corruption , judicial activists ; the politicians in black robes syndrome has been with us for quite sometime:

1- The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

2- Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases


3- The Best Defense


4- Don Boudreaux points out that Justice Thurgood Marshall took a dim view of drug dealers and openly suggested that he would reflexively side against them in cases (via Radley Balko). Marshall told LIFE in 1987, a year after Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Drug Abuse Act, “If it’s a dope case, I won’t even read the petition. I ain’t giving no break to no dope dealer.

In conclusion my fellow Americans , Judicial Review is a dream



And so it goes

 

[Contumacious]

There are 4,000,000 Americans languishing in prison for offending the Police State - according to The Best Defense, most of them racial, ethnic, religious and political minorities. The “judges” can ignore the law and facts with IMPUNITY.



.

 

[Contumacious]

The leftwingers were hoping to show that Trump’s allegations about Judicial corruption could be easily debunked.

But that will be impossible to do now that there are numerous textbooks showing otherwise.



.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The judiciary, federal or state, is by far the most useful and least corrupt branch of American government.

...it also costs virtually nothing (the entire federal judiciary costs something like 0.5% of the budget, IIRC).

 

[Contumacious]

And you came to the conclusion that the judiciary was the “least corrupt “ HOW ?!?!?!?!


And if they are the least corrupt WHY did the USURP legal immunity?!?!?!?!?!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And you came to the conclusion that the judiciary was the “least corrupt “ HOW ?!?!?!?!

And if they are the least corrupt WHY did the USURP legal immunity?!?!?!?!?!

The courts have actual work to do: e.g. trying people convicted of crimes or resolving private disputes.

How do you think people accused of murder, robbery, etc, get handled?

How do you think suits between firms over contract violations get resolved?

Contrast this with legislatures and executives, who do very little other than hand out money to purchase votes.

Anyway, friendly suggestion; try using fewer exclamation points.

 

[Contumacious]

The textbooks and reports shown herein above clearly show that your judicial purity is a b u l l s h I t pipe dream and that President Trump’s assertions are spot on.





,

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The textbooks and reports shown herein above clearly show that your judicial purity is a b u l l s h I t pipe dream and that President Trump’s assertions are spot on.

LOL, what on earth are you talking about?

You quoted some old SCOTUS decisions (the SCOTUS being the most political court in the country, and very political indeed, now dominated by Trump appointees). You do realize that the SCOTUS does not do any work at all except with what they consider to be important cases (which are not actually important and haven't been since Commissar Roosevelt successfully threatened to pack the court in 1937 and thereby de-nutted the Justices). You have a court in your county, and then some more of some kind in your state. Those courts actually do work; they try murderers, robbers, etc, and resolve all manner of disputes. And they cost virtually nothing. Here, I explain inexplicably on a libertarian site, is how government should function. The state has exactly two functions: security and justice. Security is provided by the Army and so forth, and some kind of police, though less than we have now. Justice is provided by the courts. The courts as they now exist do a pretty good job of providing justice, given the laws that the legislature makes. The Army also does a pretty good job at what it does. Those are the only two institutions that I trust at all: Army and Court. The legislature and your precious President, ...I could do without.

 

[Contumacious]

Do not stonewall - do no go on tangents


The textbooks and reports quoted herein above clearly show that Judicial Review is non existent. Rebut , refute or shut the f u c k up.



.

 

[Contumacious]

No Founder ever suggested that Federal Judges be immune from lawsuits - the authority was USURPED. !!!!!!!!!!!!!


Corrupt to their core

 

[dude58677]

Judicial Corruption , judicial activists ; the politicians in black robes syndrome has been with us for quite sometime:

1- The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

2- Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases


3- The Best Defense


4- Don Boudreaux points out that Justice Thurgood Marshall took a dim view of drug dealers and openly suggested that he would reflexively side against them in cases (via Radley Balko). Marshall told LIFE in 1987, a year after Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Drug Abuse Act, “If it’s a dope case, I won’t even read the petition. I ain’t giving no break to no dope dealer.

In conclusion my fellow Americans , Judicial Review is a dream



And so it goes

Don’t forget the Selective Draft Law Cases. The draft is clearly unconstitutional but it was upheld in that case and then the Supreme Court continued to uphold it for the next several decades.

Plus the majority of cases get thrown out so it is actually very rare for the Supreme Court to hear a case and even less likely they will rule in your favor. Unless you have a team of high profile lawyers and a dispute over a urgent national issue, don’t ever count on the courts to protect your rights.

Let’s also not forget that all of them are anti-capitalist otherwise they would have lifetime government jobs. They wouldn’t be working in the private sector instead.

 

[Contumacious]

Don’t forget the Selective Draft Law Cases. The draft is clearly unconstitutional but it was upheld in that case and then the Supreme Court continued to uphold it for the next several decades.

Plus the majority of cases get thrown out so it is actually very rare for the Supreme Court to hear a case and even less likely they will rule in your favor. Unless you have a team of high profile lawyers and a dispute over a urgent national issue, don’t ever count on the courts to protect your rights.

Let’s also not forget that all of them are anti-capitalist otherwise they would have lifetime government jobs. They wouldn’t be working in the private sector instead.

Indeed.

In Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), the scumbags ruled that paper money was legal currency as long as they were redeemable in gold and silver.


In U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO.(1935) the scumbags ruled that paper money was legal currency even if they were NOT redeemable in gold and silver.




.

 

[Contumacious]

The Founding Fathers created a judiciary which was supposed to be the bulwark of liberty.

The individuals appointed should aggressively declare the law as intended by the Framers. Justices should not be concerned about agreeing or grandstanding for the Fake News Media.

They must see that justice be done though the heavens may fall. If they can’t or won’t do that they should resign.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

No Founder ever suggested that Federal Judges be immune from lawsuits - the authority was USURPED. !!!!!!!!!!!!!


Corrupt to their core

You're too ignorant to understand that the people can get rid of judicial immunity any time they want, just as they got rid of immunity for charities and interspousal immunity.

You're also too ignorant to know that the Founders contemplated judicial review:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist 78

 

[Contumacious]

You're too ignorant to understand that the people can get rid of judicial immunity any time they want, just as they got rid of immunity for charities and interspousal immunity.

You're also too ignorant to know that the Founders contemplated judicial review:

When did WE THE PEOPLE grant Article III judges judicial immunity? Id by Article, Section and Clause


When/Where/How did I say, assert, suggest , imply that WE THE PEOPLE do not have a right to judicial review?

.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

When/Where/How did I say, assert, suggest , imply that WE THE PEOPLE do not have a right to judicial review?

"The textbooks and reports quoted herein above clearly show that Judicial Review is non existent."

If it doesn't exist, you pathetic cretin, the people don't have it.

 

[dude58677]

"The textbooks and reports quoted herein above clearly show that Judicial Review is non existent."

If it doesn't exist, you pathetic cretin, the people don't have it.

Calm down, Smugs! The purpose of the Bill of Rights is so that the judicial branch ( and any branch for that matter) can’t abuse power by rubber stamping unconstitutional laws!

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

In other words, fuck off!

 

[Contumacious]

"The textbooks and reports quoted herein above clearly show that Judicial Review is non existent."

If it doesn't exist, you pathetic cretin, the people don't have it.

I do not understand why you insist in debating a subject which is way over your head.

I am educating you free of charge

First , learn the difference between the maxims DE JURE vs DE FACTO

Article III states that WE ARE ****SUPPOSED**** To have Judicial Review

but those Textbooks and many other sources show that

IN REALITY WE DO NOT HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW

The low life m o t h e r f u c k e r s can ignore a complaint or the constitution with impunity.





.

 

[Contumacious]

Calm down, Smugs! The purpose of the Bill of Rights is so that the judicial branch ( and any branch for that matter) can’t abuse power by rubber stamping unconstitutional laws!

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

In other words, $#@! off!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

IN REALITY WE DO NOT HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW

We do. It's just that when the Court upholds a law that you think is unconstitutional it's not exercising judicial review the way you think it should.

A while back there was a thread on this site where people listed what they viewed as the worst SCOTUS cases in history. In some of the cases the Court struck down a democratically-enacted law and in others it didn't. Ironically, some people listed Marbury v. Madison, the case in which the Court said it had the power of judicial review. It apparently didn't occur to them that without Marbury legislatures would be more apt to pass unconstitutional laws.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...l-time&highlight=worst+supreme+court+decision