Surprising Sanity From The New York Times

The insanity of the political left has reached new heights in recent days, so it was a bit of a surprise when The New York Times posted a very rational article last night praising President Trump for the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice. Contrast this attitude with comments made by ABC’s Nightline before the nominee was named (from Newsbusters):

I suppose we should all be grateful that they at least corrected their initial statement.

At any rate, The New York Times article has a very rational suggestion about the hearings on Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment:

Fair questions would include inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific.

Everyone would have to understand that in honestly answering, Judge Kavanaugh would not be making a pledge — a pledge would be a violation of judicial independence. In the future, he would of course be free to change his mind if confronted with new arguments or new facts, or even if he merely comes to see a matter differently with the weight of judgment on his shoulders. But honest discussions of one’s current legal views are entirely proper, and without them confirmation hearings are largely pointless.

The compromise I’m proposing would depart from recent confirmation practice. But the current confirmation process is badly broken, alternating between rubber stamps and witch hunts. My proposal would enable each constitutional actor to once again play its proper constitutional role: The Senate could become a venue for serious constitutional conversation, and the nominee could demonstrate his or her consummate legal skill. And equally important: Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninetysomething Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fiftysomething votes he is likely to get.

A praiseworthy statement from The New York Times.

Why This Election Is So Important

President Obama has been in office almost eight years. During that time he has appointed numerous judges. Needless to say, the judges he has appointed tend to be liberal judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a ‘living’ document that can be twisted in a variety of different ways. Those judges appointed by President Obama are already playing a role in the November election.

USA Today posted an article today explaining how the judges President Obama has appointed are influencing the vote.

The article explains:

Judges named by Obama to federal appellate and district courts overseeing North Carolina, Texas, Michigan and Wisconsin have in recent months voted to strike down restrictions on voting imposed by Republican legislatures. In Michigan and North Carolina, his Supreme Court nominees helped block efforts to restore the restrictions for this fall’s elections.

The rulings could help hundreds of thousands of voters — mostly minorities who vote Democratic — get to the polls in November by removing impediments such as photo IDs and making it easier to register and vote.

First of all, let’s deal with the spin in the article. In the March primary election in North Carolina, photo ID was required. USA Today reported in March:

North Carolina election officials also said their primary turnout was the second highest in the past 28 years. The turnout was about 35% on Tuesday. A record turnout of 37% was set in 2008.

There are a lot of activities that require photo ID. Requiring an ID to vote does not limit turnout–it limits fraud. Minorities are not stupid–they are perfectly capable of obtaining photo ID’s. In fact, if you are over eighteen and want to work, you need some form of identification to be put on the payroll, if you are on welfare, you need a photo ID to sign up or open a bank account. Requiring a photo ID neither suppresses voter turnout or puts an undue burden on voters. It does help prevent fraud.

Today’s article at USA Today reports the following:

But Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School specializing in elections and voting rights, says judges tend to view the cases “through ideological and partisan prisms.”

At the federal appeals court level, those prisms have shifted left since Obama came to office. While only one federal circuit court had a majority of judges named by Democratic presidents in January 2009, nine do now. The percentage of appellate judges named by Democrats has risen from 39% to 55% during that period.

So far this year, judges nominated by Obama and Bill Clinton have sided with civil rights groups and Democratic lawyers every time. Those named by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have split their votes.

If you would like to see America governed according to the Constitution we were founded with, you need to vote for Republicans this November. Otherwise there is serious danger of America morphing into a country none of us will recognize.

The Question On The North Carolina Ballot

This was posted on Facebook by the Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina. When you vote in North Carolina, please keep in mind that a trial by jury is a right guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution.

Waive Right to Trial by Jury

Amendment

Friends,

As you may or may not have heard by now, on Election Day, November 4th 2014 there will be an amendment on the ballot left for North Carolina Voters to decide on. The Amendment, if passed, would amend the Constitution regarding jury trials in non death penalty cases. Instead of having a jury trial as mandated in the current form of the constitution, this would allow a defendant to waive his right to a jury trial and opt instead for a bench trial (with judicial allowance) and the case would then go before the NC Superior Court.

While the legislatively referred amendment may seem to lack fanfare or immediate consequence, there always remains the lingering possible negative consequences of “tinkering” with defendant rights and the judicial system. I would recommend folks look into this issue by referring to it’s Senate Bill # SB 399; which was sponsored by Peter Brunstetter. (This passed in the house overwhelmingly, with only one hold out vote cast by Michael Speciale.)

Consider the careful and thoughtful intent our Founding Fathers placed into writing the US Constitution, their foresight into matters such as these is absolutely relevant still today. In the Declaration of Independence a major grievance was the deprivation or jury trials in matter dealing with Great Britain, and detainment without trial. (We know the rest of the story so I will spare you the political history soapbox) However, fast forward to our modern system of criminal justice and even our Federal system has now adopted the right to waive a jury (in certain cases) to opt for a bench trial. In fact 49/50 states have this option (though statutes and limitations on this vary by state) so North Carolina is the last hold out; and to be perfectly honest and to inject my personal thoughts here, I truly think it is something to be proud of. We have maintained over the years that the right to jury trial is the best form of justice for defendants.

Some of the issues which have been raised to counter this Amendment include cases such as White Collar crimes and Fraud, bankers, political boosters, lobbyists, Insurance and Securities fraud etc. because of potential close relationships these types of defendants may have with certain judges or prosecutors. One case Nicole Revels brought up was the one in which the heir to the DuPont fortune was accused (and supposedly later admitted) to child molestation of one of his own children (he was accused of molesting two of his own children) he was granted a bench trial and sentenced to serve time, which was quickly after repealed by the judge with the explanation or excuse that he would not “fare well” in prison.

The other side of the rich and wealthy are the indigent, and low IQ defendants who already often admit to crimes they have not committed. If this option (to waive a jury) were to be taken away, perhaps a more sympathetic jury would not get to consider circumstances in which would either influence a lighter sentence (or even give the jury the option to nullify the case) I have been trying to find an old case I studied while in Criminal Law class at Campbell. I recall that there was a case in which an African American man with a fairly low IQ (and possibly some learning disorder) had seen a class where you could order away for information to become a private detective (he also at a certain point obtained a handgun) at some point later he went to the police station (possibly to talk to someone about being a “detective”) and either he disclosed that he had the gun, or it was found. It went to trial and he was facing a lengthy sentence. The case ended up being Nullified as the sympathetic jury decided he was not intending harm, and in fact was not able to even comprehend properly the laws and regulations. (No one was hurt and no violent crime happened here) I fear this man would have had the book thrown at him if he had gone in front of a judge.

Our prisons are already overpopulated with minority youths, many of which are serving very lengthy sentences because of possession charges or other non-violent crimes. Many of these defendants plea out, but for the ones who do not, I believe the Founding Fathers had the vision and capacity to understand that a jury of one’s own peers would be best fit to decide a sentence (if any at all) or find them not guilty. This amendment, in a perfect world, may just give defendants a fair option to make their own decision. However, the possibility to persuade or sway defendant’s in an intended direction remains a great risk to liberty. Most voters will not have even heard about this amendment when they go vote on November 4th, and they may just pick a quick answer, move on and never think twice about it. I think our Voters deserve more information, and more transparency. No matter what stance you take, I believe we need to educate and get the word out about SB 399, before it slips past us.

In Liberty,
Sara Remini

Free Speech ?

There have been a few instances in recent years that have called into question whether or not we have a First Amendment. Two recent examples are the four people charged with disorderly conduct because they were handing out copies of the Gospel of John outside an Arab cultural festival.(see rightwinggranny.com) and General Boykin being denied the right to speak at West Point because of his stand against Islamic terror (see rightwinggranny.com). The latest violation of the First Amendment by those who should be supporting it occurred near Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Yesterday the Insurance Journal reported that the Thomas More Law Center has filed a civil suit against Allegan Michigan officials and the leaders of a Muslim civil rights organization that asked the city to cancel the event.

The article reports:

According to the suit, a speech given Jan. 28 by Kamal Saleem at Allegan High School was stopped by police acting on a letter opposing Saleem’s visit. The letter was sent several days earlier by Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The suit also said that police were told of possible _ and unconfirmed _ threats against Saleem, said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More center. Thompson said shutting down the meeting violated Saleem’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More center, commented, “The irony is this event was held to extol the virtues of the U.S. Constitution. In the middle, you have the police coming in and shutting it down. The audience is shouting ‘What about free speech?’ ”

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), stated, “We believe he is a bogus ex-terrorist. I’m saying he’s a total fraud. If they want to sue me, then sue me for defamation of character. We view this lawsuit as a nuisance and form of trying to drain advocacy organizations of their resources. Advocacy organizations have freedom of speech to raise concerns about people who propagate divisive messages in the community.”

We need to understand that CAIR was in unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Case–they have an agenda. Their goal is to use the American legal system to undermine the rights of Americans and destroy the US Constitution so that it can be replaced with Sharia Law. If that sounds wild to you, please google the Holy Land Foundation Case and read the plans for destroying the American legal system. Those plans are included in the case documents and are available to the public.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The First Qualification To Hold Office In America Ought To Be A Respect And Love For America

The Daily Caller reported today that Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a television interview that when the people of Egypt write their constitution they should not look to the U. S. Constitution as an inspiration. She stated that the U. S. Constitution is too old and that there are more recent constitutions to use as examples.

The article reports:

Ginsburg, appointed to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton, said South Africa’s constitution is “a great piece of work that was done” and cited other documents outside America’s constitution that Egyptians should read.

“Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Ginsburg said. “It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Might I point out a few flaws in her logic. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was sentenced to prison for stating an inconvenient truth about the founder of Islam (see rightwinggranny). In Canada, Mark Steyn was put on trial for stating something true about Islam in a publication. In both cases, the facts these people were citing were true–that was not the issue–the issue was that they were charged with hate speech for telling the truth. In America, we can still speak the truth without fear of arrest. What part of free speech does Justice Ginsburg not understand?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta