U.S. Supreme Court, State and Federal Judiciary Need Radical Reform

Madison, Wisconsin — If you ever have spoken with a mother of a wrongfully convicted victim, you know why you should work to free the innocent and condemn the judiciary.

Mothers are up against unyielding judges and prosecutors who operate in collusion with other politicians, against the innocent.

The judiciary branch at all levels of operation is often a black-robed bulwark against justice. All those wrongful convictions we hear about in the news?

These miscarriages of justice are presided over by judges, but it's taboo to point out that strutting judges have ruined lives, and that judges are catastrophically wrong in how they conducted themselves.

Judges, especially federal judges, are commonly absurd figures, yet unless you read Lara Bazelon (as one should), this reality of the judiciary is protected by professional taboo, cult command, corporate media and Democrats.

Richard Posner, public intellectual and former judge on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, upon his retirement, termed many federal judges, "reactionary beasts," manipulating statutes and the Constitution as they engineer desired results in federal litigation.

But even Posner shied away from a full-blooded critique for reasons unknown.

The United States Supreme Court is poised to launch a massive assault against liberty, and escalate judicial malice to a new level — the long-planned destruction of women's liberty, in accordance with the Catholic Church and other political actors.

This coming instantaneous ripping away of foundational rights is not inducing national Democratic Party voices to demand radical reform of the judiciary branch (Roe v. Wade, Politico, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization). Last year, at oral arguments in Dobbs, Democrats offered statements that they may be open to considering and looking at the issue of Court reform and not "doing nothing." Seriously, that's what Democrats had to say on the eve of the destruction of Roe, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Rules of Professional Conduct of attorneys generally protect the judges' cult, and broadly forbid attorneys from pointing out intellectually dishonest operations of judges and other attorneys.

In fact, attorneys operate under an affirmative duty to "further the public's ... confidence in the rule of law and the justice system." Democrats in Congress and the presidency follow these taboo dictates, no matter the provocation.

Even when the justice system and its actors are dishonest and destructive. Can you imagine a member of Congress or a president demanding public confidence and respect, on the pain of contempt and imprisonment? Their popularity would tank immediately, and such officials would be suspected of having taken leave of their senses.

Not so the judiciary branch.

Writes Lara Bazelon in The Strand Magazine in June 2021:

Judges are the kings and queens of the legal system, literally looking at the populace they rule over from perches high up on a mahogany dais.  Referred to as 'Your Honor,' they demand constant verbal genuflection and scurrying about in response to their commands that is the equivalent of bowing and scraping.

'God save the United States and this Honorable Court!' the U.S. Marshal solemnly intones after the gavel comes down, a roomful of people stand up, and the nine justices of the Supreme Court enter the hallowed marble fiefdom where they preside.

In federal court, you don’t go anywhere or do anything without asking for permission.  'May it please the court?' 'May I approach?' 'May I confer with my client?' 'May I ask for a brief recess so that I can go to the bathroom and throw up because even though I am deathly ill you made me show up anyway?'

Judges are the closest thing that America has to royalty. Their power is enormous: what they do changes the courses of fortunes and lives.  They can award millions, even billions, they can send people to prison for the rest of their lives—or to their deaths. Often their decisions bind future generations. Because judges have so much power and responsibility, we assume they are eminently deserving of the honor and authority conferred upon them.

As the Dobbs leak shows, the judiciary does not function in an intellectually honest, apolitical fashion objectively finding facts, doctrine and application of law like detached agents of pure epistemology, hard science enforced by tyrannical control of courtrooms and taboo rules against public criticism.

Judges act as black-robed kobolds, diminutive "goblin-like creatures with short-tempers and a mischievous spirit."

Congress needs to begin reform of the judiciary that will include mandates that every oral argument, judicial memo and correspondence be revealed to the American people in as close to real-time as possible.

Judges cannot be trusted with the honor and authority conferred upon them.

The institutional narcissism and unparalleled arrogance of the judicial branch, working for totalitarian movements, needs to come to an end.

Derek Chauvin's Sentencing Statement Shows Malignant Psychopath in Sad Show

Derek Chauvin — Murdering freak and good cop, perfect cop

Commentary

Updated - Madison, Wisconsin —  Derek Chauvin flew his colors in his sentencing hearing Friday, a bizarre affair.

I don't like psychopaths like Chauvin.

They make my hair stand on my arms, and it's difficult not to feel almost victimized just through a brief conversation.

Not sure how many psychopaths are guessed to exist in America, but I know an outsized bunch are cops.

Cops are taught to dehumanize and let citizens know their status is subjects, in the presence of superior human beings, the police. The type of human garbage who wants this line of work takes right to it.

Derek Chauvin doesn't understand people, is malignant towards people, and these qualities make him suited for supervisory status and nineteen years with the Minneapolis Police, right until he was caught on video murdering a man.

So the world waited for Derek Chauvin yesterday. Would he offer words of regret for his horror show?

Here's what Chauvin had to day:

Very briefly though, I do want to give my condolences to the Floyd family.

There's going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest. And I hope things will give you some, some peace of mind. Thank you.

Sadistic and cruel, Chauvin took no personal responsibility for murdering George Floyd, had no contrition. This guy doesn't care about the Floyd family now, any more than how he regarded George Floyd.

For Judge Peter Cahill, this lack of contrition passed without note.

Even after hearing from the Floyd family in open court, sadistic, Chauvin showed he thinks what he did is right, before he dangled new "other information" that Chauvin assures will bring "peace of mind" for the family, after Chauvin reveals what he knows.

This is not a matter of Chauvin being tone-deaf, as some commenters have said. 

This is the way of the malignant psychopath who thinks murdering people in cold blood is best practices for cops.

The Minneapolis Police of course tried to cover up the murder 13 months ago. 

If not for the efforts of caring citizens, healthy human beings, the cops likely would have gotten away with it.

Chauvin appeared to be in good company with the bloodless Judge Peter Cahill, another dope who thinks his office and 'authority' properly drive him to regard mere mortals with contempt.

A parlor game before the sentencing includes predictions Cahill would rise to the occasion of this crime against humanity and explain what he thinks happened. Right.

Peter Cahill was up to this moment about as much as Derek Chauvin was.

Both people believe their offices mean being reptilian.

Cahill tried to make the sentencing deliberation an equation with little regard for the humanity of George Floyd and rest of the lesser beings beneath the judge preening on his bench.

As a note on how far we as a society have strayed from human rights, consider that even objecting citizens seemed at pains to not criticize the holy judge Cahill.

Cahill gave away his demented view of how classical liberal societies work when he admonished and castigated Maxine Waters for expressing horror about the murder, and urging citizens to up their protests during the trial in April 2021.

"'Sober as a judge,' as the saying goes. By and large, the public assumes these mighty, black-robed figures are rational, deliberative, respectful," writes Lara Bazelon.

Sober as a judge, kind as a cop. That's America.

Kamala Harris: State Should Be the "Stick" Against Parents

Sen. Kamala Harris' laughing at prosecuting California
parents for kids' tardiness or truancy.

The Joe Biden-corporate America campaign may be engaged in some misdirection in the veep-stakes.

But the fact that Biden has not ruled out Kamala Harris tells us much about Biden and the democrats: Defending wrongful convictions, throwing black and brown people in jail, and escalation of the drug war are who Joe Biden is.

Since declaring her campaign for president last year, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) emitted policy stands with the authenticity of most other packaged liberal pols like Clinton, Biden or Kerry.

But in Harris' case, there was a vainglorious quality to this apparently deluded woman caught on video laughing about how funny it was to send black and brown parents to jail when their children miss school.

"[A]s a prosecutor in law enforcement, I have a huge stick; the school has got a carrot, so let’s work in tandem around our collective objective and goal, which is to get those kids in school," said Harris in her infamous 2010 address to the Commonwealth Club.

Politicians are egotists, but Harris has convinced herself that using the state as a "stick" on parents of color makes her the right Democratic candidate for president, and for vice president.

Days before declaring her run for the presidency, Harris reflected on Jan. 21, 2019, "This is where it all began" at Howard University, the venerable institution where Harris says she became enthralled with the idea of becoming a prosecutor.

Anybody who dreams of becoming a prosecutor as a student is either obtuse, malicious or pathological.

America is a police-prosecutor-prison state that destroys lives, a perverse pursuit aimed especially at black and brown folks.

So, how did it all turn out for Harris after her start at Howard?

She became a prosecutor and California attorney general where she defended wrongful convictions, became a drug warrior and infamously became giddy on the 2010 campaign trail in recounting to the Commonwealth Club how she jailed the parents of students who were late or absent from school.

Democratic Party primary voters should watch this video below on The Young Turks discussing the Commonwealth Club appearance because, honestly, there is something wrong with a strutting candidate cackling about inflicting stress and prison onto low-income parents.

Harris' recounting of imprisoning parents is almost as disheartening as Trump throwing children into cages. Someone so out-of-touch with the struggles of low-income children, and so happy to use the state as a punitive stick against parents is someone for whom I'll never vote.

Video of Harris' laughter and narrative went viral last January; and Harris' broader record as a prosecutor is the subject of analyses by Briahna Gray in The Intercept, Lara Bazelon in the New York Times, Marie Gottschalk in In These Times and others.

Writes Gray in The Intercept:

[Harris is] running for president as a progressive, but as attorney general of California, she criminalized truancy — making it a crime for kids to be late for school and dragging into the criminal justice system even more disproportionately low-income, predominantly black and Latino families. She’s overlooked the misconduct of her prosecutors and fought to uphold their wrongfully secured convictions. She defended California’s choice to deny gender reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate, and in 2014, she appealed a federal judge’s holding that the death penalty was unconstitutional.

The list goes on and on. But in some ways, the details don’t matter. The problem isn’t that Harris was an especially bad prosecutor. She made positive contributions as well, encouraging education and re-entry programs for ex-offenders, for instance. The problem, more precisely, is that she was ever a prosecutor at all.

To become a prosecutor is to make a choice to align oneself with a powerful and fundamentally biased system.

That's right.

Why is it so funny to send parents with struggling children to jail? We have never had an explanation from Harris.

Kamela Harris Is Destructive and Appalling

Sen. Kamela Harris' laughing at prosecuting California
parents for kids' tardiness or truancy has not been addressed
yet on the campaign trail. See The Young Turks.

Since declaring her campaign for president, Sen. Kamela Harris (D-CA) has emitted policy stands with the authenticity of most other packaged liberal pols like Clinton, Biden or Kerry.

But in Harris' case, there is a vainglorious quality to this apparently deluded woman caught on video laughing about how funny it is to send black and brown parents to jail when their children miss school.

Politicians are egotists, but Harris has convinced herself that using the state as a "stick" on parents of color makes her the right Democratic candidate for president.

Days before declaring her run for the presidency, Harris reflected on Jan. 21, 2019, "This is where it all began" at Howard University, the venerable institution where Harris says she became enthralled with the idea of becoming a prosecutor.

Anybody who dreams of becoming a prosecutor as a student is either obtuse, malicious or pathological.

America is a police-prosecutor-prison state that destroys lives, a perverse pursuit aimed especially at black and brown folks.

So, how did it all turn out for Harris after her start at Howard?

She became a prosecutor and California attorney general where she defended wrongful convictions, became a drug warrior and infamously became giddy on the 2010 campaign trail in recounting to the Commonwealth Club how she jailed the parents of students who were late or absent from school.

Democratic Party primary voters should watch this video below on The Young Turks discussing the Commonwealth Club appearance because, honestly, there is something wrong with a strutting candidate cackling about inflicting stress and prison onto low-income parents.

Harris' recounting of imprisoning parents is almost as disheartening as Trump throwing children into cages. Someone so out-of-touch with the struggles of low-income children, and so happy to use the state as a punitive stick against parents is someone for whom I'll never vote.

Video of Harris' laughter and narrative went viral last January; and Harris' broader record as a prosecutor is the subject of analyses by Briahna Gray in The Intercept, Lara Bazelon in the New York Times, Marie Gottschalk in In These Times and others.

Writes Gray in The Intercept:

[Harris is] running for president as a progressive, but as attorney general of California, she criminalized truancy — making it a crime for kids to be late for school and dragging into the criminal justice system even more disproportionately low-income, predominantly black and Latino families. She’s overlooked the misconduct of her prosecutors and fought to uphold their wrongfully secured convictions. She defended California’s choice to deny gender reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate, and in 2014, she appealed a federal judge’s holding that the death penalty was unconstitutional.

The list goes on and on. But in some ways, the details don’t matter. The problem isn’t that Harris was an especially bad prosecutor. She made positive contributions as well, encouraging education and re-entry programs for ex-offenders, for instance. The problem, more precisely, is that she was ever a prosecutor at all.

To become a prosecutor is to make a choice to align oneself with a powerful and fundamentally biased system.

That's right.

One hopes someone poses the following question to Harris at the CNN Democratic Presidential debate next week:

What the hell is so funny about sending parents with struggling children to jail? Why were you laughing at the Commonwealth Club?