U.S. SC Justices’ bias void impartiality claims

April 22, 2015

Justices Ginsburg, Kagan have taken public stance in favor of same-sex marriage

Should U.S. Supreme Court justices who effectively endorsed same-sex marriage by officiating at such ceremonies be ruling on whether or not the Constitution grants states the right to ban them?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C., in August 2013. Justice Elena Kagan officiated at a same-sex marriage for her former law clerk and his partner last September. 

Herbert Titus, a nationally recognized constitutional authority, is quoted as saying the two justices must have known at the time that it was almost inevitable for the issue to be put to the Supreme Court, “yet they went ahead and put their official imprimatur on same-sex marriage.” Titus said the likely response from the justices will be that they believe that they can be neutral on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“It tells you an awful lot about the culture,” he continued. “These people are immersed in the homosexual culture to the point they would step out of their role as a justice to officiate in a wedding that would put them in a position of lending their name and prestige to same-sex marriage when they had every good reason to believe the issue would be before the court.”

April 28 is the day the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an appeal from the Sixth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. A helpful guide intended for fledgling reporters covering the challenges can be read on the SCOTUS blog

The American Family Association (AFA) provides a way for citizens to tell their congressional representatives that both Ginsburg and Kagan need to recuse themselves from the case.

“U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving the homosexual marriage issue on the basis that they have conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies,” the campaign letter states.

Joining AFA is the Coalition of African-American Pastors, (CAAP). It has also called upon the justices to recuse themselves, since each has revealed a pro-homosexual bias.

“A Justice of the Supreme Court is called on to avoid the appearance of bias—especially on a highly controversial and sensitive issue that is currently before the Court,” said Rev. William Owens, president and founder of CAAP. “And yet, both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan have taken a public stance in favor of same-sex marriage, even going so far as to officiate at a same-sex wedding.”

“Not only is this a breach of ethics, but it calls into question the integrity of the Court and the supposed balance that the judicial branch is meant to provide in constitutional interpretation. It is beyond objectionable that no action has yet been taken to ensure that the case will be adjudicated fairly. And so it falls to us, the people, to take action. CAAP is launching a petition urging Justices Kagan and Ginsburg remove themselves from decision-making on this issue and prevent a crisis brought on by the taint of a biased judiciary.”


Hinckley roams freely, Chapman denied parole

April 20, 2015

The facts of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life and the others who were shot on March 30, 1981 can be found on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog. What is startling is that for the past year, under a judge’s order, would-be assassin John Hinckley, the last man to shoot a U.S. President, spends 17 days a month at his 85-year-old mother’s gated Williamsburg resort community home overlooking a golf course.

Court hearings are set to begin this week on whether to further expand Hinckley’s time away from the mental health facility —- possibly permanently. His outings began in 2003 with day visits outside the institution, then local overnight visits. Starting in 2006, Hinckley was allowed three-night trips to Williamsburg, then four, then more. In late 2013, a judge approved the current 17-day stretches. Paul Friedman, Senior District Judge for the District of Columbia said he was persuaded Hinckley was not a danger and that the longer stays might “provide new opportunities for employment and structured community activities.”

How nice.

Hinckley now nearly 60, volunteers, goes to movies, plays guitar, eats in restaurants and drives alone, but only to places where “people will be expecting him.” He must “avoid areas where the president or members of Congress may be visiting.” 

“Avoid?” Is there no stronger admonition?

Prosecutors have consistently opposed Hinckley’s release, arguing he has a history of deceptive behavior and troubling relationships with women. During the last hearings, they cited a July 2011 incident in which he went to a bookstore instead of a movie and then lied about it. The Secret Service, whose agents sporadically tail Hinckley, reported he looked at shelves that contained books about Reagan and his attempted assassination, though he didn’t pick anything up.

“Mr. Hinckley has not shown himself ready to conduct the hard work of transitioning to a new city,” prosecutor Sarah Chasson said in 2011.

Mark David Chapman shot and killed John Lennon in 1980. He was sentenced to 20 years to life. He has been denied parole eight times.  The parole board concluded that releasing Chapman would “deprecate the seriousness of the crime and serve to undermine respect for the law.”

Why couldn’t Judge Friedman, a 1994 Bill Clinton appointee, reach the same conclusion when it comes to John Hinckley?


Brnovich flies under radar as he caves on illegal enforcement

April 6, 2015

It’s all about $aving taxpayer dollar$, doncha know?

Unless you’re an eagle-eyed reader, you might have missed the latest news from Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. It was tucked away and hugging the bottom of Page 3 in a travelogue sounding section called “Around Arizona.”.

The Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) couldn’t be more gleeful to report that Brnovich filed a motion on Friday asking a U.S. District Court to dismiss the Ninth U. S. Circuit appeal of a policy charging illegal aliens as co-conspirators with their well-paid coyote transporters as they smuggle themselves into Arizona.  By pulling the appeal, Brnovich will let stand an injunction against enforcing the statute.

In a statement to the newspaper, Brnovich says he is “committed to defending Arizona from federal overreach and enforcing our immigration laws.” Then comes the “but,” which in legalese morphs into “however.”

“However, I also have an obligation to be responsible with taxpayer dollars and defend the state where we are most likely to prevail. That is why I filed for the dismissal of the state’s legal challenge to the human-smuggling portion of SB 1070 today.”

Karen Tumlin, a lawyer with the far-leftist, pro-illegal invasion National Immigration Law Center in California, cheered, “The chapter of the smuggling law is now officially over.” But she noted that litigation continues on others, including the “Show me your papers” statute that requires law-enforcement officials to inquire about the citizenship of people they stop and statutes regarding day laborers and impounding the vehicles of people harboring illegal immigrants. “This is a sign that the state may move away from this litigation,” Tumlin hopefully added.

In an astonishing double standard, The Republic evidenced no reluctance to use scare tactics in editorials and news reports including declaring citizens would be unable to board an airplane without an intrusive national ID card as it promoted legislation on a “Show me your papers” law for American citizens.


Fed. Judge stalls Obama’s amnesty executive order

February 18, 2015

Obama unable to suspend deportations

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s opinion and order cuts to the chase from page one of the 123-page document as he delivers a blow to Barack Obama‘s executive order on illegals, defining the issue in these terms:

This is a case in which twenty-six states or their representatives are seeking injunctive relief against the United States and several officials of the Department of Homeland Security to prevent them from implementing a program titled “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.” This program is designed to provide legal presence to over four million individuals who are currently in the country illegally, and would enable these individuals to obtain a variety of both state and federal benefits. It continues here.

Judge Hanen noted that the Department of Homeland Security “legislated a substantial rule without complying with the procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act” because the executive amnesty provisions did not undergo “notice-and-comment rule making procedure.” He concluded that the Department of Homeland Security is “not rewriting laws,” but actually “creating them from scratch.” He also determined that Obama’s executive amnesty is a “complete abdication” of immigration enforcement.

Hanen said that if the program were allowed to proceed at this point, “The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.”  This video montage of Obama mocking the very executive orders he has been working to implement leaves no doubt he knew he was acting outside the framework of the law.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is no stranger to suing the Obama administration, having filed more than 30 lawsuits while serving as Texas‘ Attorney General. In this case, he filed the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama‘s executive order and was  joined by numerous other states. The collective Plaintiffs include the States of Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin., Michigan, Mississippi, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee and Nevada.

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.


Illegal ID thieves become victims in topsy-turvy world

January 27, 2015

The laws that Arizona citizens look to for protection from the life-altering crime of identity theft are not worthy of being enforced if the perpetrator happens to be an illegal alien, in the world according to U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell.

Prosecutors are now dismissing identity-theft cases in light of Campbell’s preliminary injunction ordering law enforcement and prosecutors to stop pursuing felony convictions in cases where stolen identity is used to obtain employment until he issues a final ruling on the case —- according to a report in the pro-open borders Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic).

In short, this means that the court’s loathing of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is greater than its concern for the actual victims of crime perpetrated by those who have invaded our country.

Ironically, Paul Charlton, the lawyer representing one of the highest-profile business owner defendants arrested by the sheriff’s office, is the former United States Attorney for the District of Arizona —- appointed by President George W. Bush.

Carlos Garcia, director of the radical Puente Arizona, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said he hopes the injunction is the beginning of the end for the ID-theft laws.

Sure. Why not?

Arizona courts have incrementally gutted the ability of law enforcement to protect citizens as further protections have been gifted to those invading our state and nation.

ID theft is not a victimless crime. “In some of the worst cases of identity theft, people who have had their name stolen, are refused loans, have lost their jobs, have had their wages garnished or been arrested for crimes they haven’t committed,” said AARP’s previous Arizona State Director David Mitchell.  “And cleaning up the mess can take years and money.”

Illegal alien identity thieves are also stealing your child’s future. Their Social Security numbers are especially valuable targets, since children aren’t employed, making discovery of the fraud unlikely until years after it has occurred and hundreds of thousands in debt have been accrued.

As far back as 2008 we wrote Illegal alien couple applied for home loan, bought cars, using stolen SSNs.

Has Judge David Campbell ever watched this video which highlights the $750,000 debt piled on a young Arizona girl by illegals? Does he care?


Judge Katherine Cooper’s cringe-worthy lack of judgment

January 22, 2015

Lady_Justice_Sneaks_a_Peek

Convicted sex offender & fugitive live-in boyfriend arrested at judge’s home

In a startling report of a judge —- entrusted with life or death decision-making in the lives of Maricopa County residents —- KPHO-TV 5 exposes the personal reality disconnect of Superior Court Judge Katherine “Kay” Cooper.

Living in the digital age and surrounded by nearly daily technological advances, it would be a reasonable assumption that a trial court judge would be astute enough to at least do a free public records search on the honey she’s moving into her home. Exercising that bit of savvy is known as being judicious —– at trait judges should have in abundance. Judge Cooper has been on the bench since being appointed by Gov. Jan Brewer in 2011.

In the case of romance-blinded Katherine Cooper, her live-in boyfriend of two years is a convicted sex offender under indictment for extortion in New York.

In this in-depth coverage, complete with photos of the couple, reporter Donna Rossi notes the judge’s boyfriend, Michael Kent Krause, 42, was indicted recently in New York on a felony charge of grand larceny due to extortion.

Detectives tracked Krause down at the central Phoenix home owned by Cooper after they could not locate him at a small, ramshackle trailer at a Mesa RV park where he rents a space. The Mesa location is the address the state has on record for Krause as part of his sex offender registration requirement.

Krause has quite a rap sheet. He’s a registered sex offender, a convicted felon out of California and was recently arrested at the judge’s home on a warrant for being a fugitive from justice.

It has also been reported that California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation records show that Krause has spent time in prison for burglary, assault with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to commit a sex offense.

Though she claimed to be “shocked” when news of the allegations against Michael Krause became public, and stated that he no longer resides with her, it appears she has hired a former law school classmate to defend him.

Judge Katherine Cooper (her first name was misspelled as Catherine in this voter guide) was just retained by Maricopa County voters in November.


AZ Federal judge protects illegals using stolen ID

January 7, 2015

Judicial overreaches reach new low

In a news article in which the headline is nearly as large as the report itself, the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) enthusiastically treats readers to the latest in outrageous judicial actions. The report states, U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell “issued a preliminary injunction blocking Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery from enforcing two state laws that make it a felony for undocumented immigrants to use stolen identities to obtain work.”

Gnaw on that bit of preposterousness.  According to a federal judge illegal aliens have as much right to your identity as you do —- and neither law enforcement nor prosecutors are able to take legal action against the thieves. Children are viewed as especially attractive targets since their stolen identities usually go undetected for years.

Previously, when found, arrested and turned over to federal immigration officials, the identity thieves were deported. But, alas, those pesky felony convictions hindered their chances of returning to the U.S. legally. Now using legal contrivances reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984” Newspeak, a federal judge rules that disallowing criminals free access to our county and the personal identity of American citizens is repressive.

Under court imposed pressure, Arpaio has announced plans to disband his work-site enforcement unit within the next two months, following completion of an ongoing investigation.

Campbell said the state laws that criminalize the act of identify theft for the purpose of obtaining employment are likely unconstitutional because they are preempted by federal law.

Jack MacIntyre, a lawyer and deputy chief with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, correctly noted the ruling is “a little bit of an exercise in futility if you eliminate and declare a state law unconstitutional because of federal preemption with a wink and a nod to the reality that the federal government shows no interest in enforcing that area of immigration law.”

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is reviewing an appeal of the preliminary injunction.  Bill Montgomery said the ruling “underscores yet again the consequences of federal inaction and the Obama administration’s indifference to the effects of unlawful immigration practices. While pretending to address the concerns of people admittedly violating the law, the victims of identity theft are deprived of the state of Arizona’s protection.”

As expected, left-wing organizations including the ACLU and Hispanic advocacy groups, praised the contemptible ruling.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 363 other followers