Showing posts with label jurisprudence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jurisprudence. Show all posts

Apr 17, 2020

Innocent Brendan Dassey Waits in Wisconsin Prison — Wrongfully Convicted, Wrongfully Prosecuted

Corrupt Wisconsin police targeted the innocent to tragic
consequence. Image - Kathe Kollwitz, (1867-1945). Kollwitz
is a major anti-fascist artist who lived in Germany, and
never recovered from the death of her son in WW I.
"I hate injustice. I guess that's about the only thing I really do hate."
—Ben Shahn, anti-fascist artist (1898–1969)


Madison, Wisconsin—It's comforting to suppose a gentle ethic resides in Wisconsin, a decency standing ready to challenge betrayal such as defamation, child molestation, corruption, false imprisonment, torture and destruction of life.

This belief defends a lie.

This lie is perhaps the most striking message of the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docu series (Netflix, Inc), a work that holds Wisconsin up to the world and says, 'look what they have done' to a challenged, 16-year-old Brendan Dassey and an exonerated Steven Avery.

So, it is no surprise that it took a handful of out-of-state attorneys and journalists to give Messrs. Dassey and Avery hope  that exoneration is near.

One of those jurists is Seth Waxman, 41st Solicitor General of the United States (1997–2001).

A premier advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court the last 40 years, Waxman is defined more by his decency than his prominence as a litigator. See for example Waxman's work to preserve habeas corpus in 2007, (Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. United States (06-1196)), (Center for Constitutional Rights).

Waxman appears to be animated by some core beliefs: That crucifixion of our fellows is wrong, and to bear witness is to incur an obligation to act, to think, to challenge and demand justification.

Few in the State Bar of Wisconsin seem to be animated by such concern — ethics. Rather, careerism and moral numbness define their collective passivity.

Waxman — a member of Brendan Dassey's legal team — said that when reviewing the outrageous interrogation of Dassey by Mark Wiegert, (current Sheriff of the Calumet County Sheriff's Office), and Tom Fassbender (Wisconsin DoJ, DCI investigator (ret)), that his "blood ran cold."

Advocating a pardon or commutation for Dassey from Gov Tony Evers on Oct 2, 2019, Waxman said:

I have been a practicing lawyer since 1977. As part of my pro bono practice, in addition to representing juveniles in criminal justice proceedings, I represent death row inmates. Other than the almost seven years that I was in the Justice Dept, I've always had at least one client facing execution for a capital crime. I have never had a case that has troubled me more than this case, that has kept me awake at night, that makes me anxious and sad. And that's because I know that Brendan Dassey is innocent.
So, why Waxman's involvement and not the involvement or at least support of 100s of Wisconsin attorneys?

I don't pretend to know what is in Seth Waxman's heart. But I have seen hints.

Waxman made some comments at the Bernard G. Segal Memorial Lecture in Law and Ethics, April 10, 2018, explaining what animates his 1,000s of hours of pro bono work and legal advocacy since he became an attorney.

Waxman recalled attorney John Joseph Cassidy, a "cheerful and very engaged Roman Catholic," who sat with him in 1977, and asked:

'Why do you think that [religious] Jews and Jesuits are so drawn to the law?'

And, at the time, I didn't think I knew any Jesuits.

He (senior partner John Joseph Cassidy) said, that he was convinced that Jews and Jesuits excelled at the law because they both come from religious traditions steeped in wrestling with the meaning and application of God's law — a muscular intellectual engagement with religious texts.

And it is true over the course of my career, it' s actually impossible to count the number of times that the terms, Talmudic and Jesuitical, have been used to characterize particularly detailed discussions about how a specific legal principle should be interpreted or applied.

Thus, one can conclude, Waxman believes a religious and moral sensibility guides the role of lawyers during a time of lawlessness in the greater society.

I'm grateful for Seth Waxman's work for the innocent.

And to my many friends who are members of the Wisconsin Bar, I ask today for them to listen at some point to the words of Seth Waxman advocating for the innocent, video below.

To help with the Dassey commutation and pardon petition now before Gov Evers, see the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law; Bluhm Legal Clinic, Wrongful Convictions of Youth.

Specifically, all Wisconsin citizens are urged to write a letter in support of Brendan Dassey's petition for a pardon or commutation.

Letter should be addressed to:

Governor Tony Evers
115 East
State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702

Seth Waxman advocating for clemency for Brendan Dassey on Oct 2, 2019 in Madison, Wisconsin. Video is below; [See also Bring Brendan Home.]:

Nov 27, 2019

Wisconsin Souls Betray the Innocent — Thanksgiving 2019

Corrupt Wisconsin police targeted the innocent to tragic
consequence. Image - Kathe Kollwitz, (1867-1945). Kollwitz
is a major anti-fascist artist who lived in Germany, and
never recovered from the death of her son in WW I.
"I hate injustice. I guess that's about the only thing I really do hate."
—Ben Shahn, anti-fascist artist (1898–1969)


Madison, Wisconsin—It's comforting to suppose a gentle ethic resides in Wisconsin, a decency standing ready to challenge betrayal such as defamation, child molestation, corruption, false imprisonment, torture and destruction of life.

This belief defends a lie.

This lie is perhaps the most striking message of the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docu series (Netflix, Inc), a work that holds Wisconsin up to the world and says, 'look what they have done' to a challenged 16-year-old Brendan Dassey and an exonerated Steven Avery.

So, it is no surprise that it took a handful of out-of-state attorneys and journalists to give Messrs. Dassey and Avery hope, even cautions optimism, that exoneration is near.

One of those jurists is Seth Waxman, 41st Solicitor General of the United States (1997–2001).

A premier advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court the last 40 years, Waxman is defined more by his decency than his prominence as a litigator. See for example Waxman's work to preserve habeas corpus in 2007, (Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. United States (06-1196)), (Center for Constitutional Rights).

Waxman appears to be animated by some core beliefs: That crucifixion of our fellows is wrong, and to bear witness is to incur an obligation to act, to think, to challenge and demand justification.

Few in the State Bar of Wisconsin seem to be animated by such concern — ethics. Rather, careerism and moral numbness define their collective passivity.

Waxman — a member of Brendan Dassey's legal team — said that when reviewing the outrageous interrogation of Dassey by Mark Wiegert, (current Sheriff of the Calumet County Sheriff's Office), and Tom Fassbender (Wisconsin DoJ, DCI investigator (ret)), that his "blood ran cold."

Advocating a pardon or commutation for Dassey from Gov Tony Evers on Oct 2, 2019, Waxman said:

I have been a practicing lawyer since 1977. As part of my pro bono practice, in addition to representing juveniles in criminal justice proceedings, I represent death row inmates. Other than the almost seven years that I was in the Justice Dept, I've always had at least one client facing execution for a capital crime. I have never had a case that has troubled me more than this case, that has kept me awake at night, that makes me anxious and sad. And that's because I know that Brendan Dassey is innocent.
So, why Waxman's involvement and not the involvement or at least support of 100s of Wisconsin attorneys?

I don't pretend to know what is in Seth Waxman's heart. But I have seen hints.

Waxman made some comments at the Bernard G. Segal Memorial Lecture in Law and Ethics, April 10, 2018, explaining what animates his 1,000s of hours of pro bono work and legal advocacy since he became an attorney.

Waxman recalled attorney John Joseph Cassidy, a "cheerful and very engaged Roman Catholic," who sat with him in 1977, and asked:

'Why do you think that [religious] Jews and Jesuits are so drawn to the law?'

And, at the time, I didn't think I knew any Jesuits.

He (senior partner John Joseph Cassidy) said, that he was convinced that Jews and Jesuits excelled at the law because they both come from religious traditions steeped in wrestling with the meaning and application of God's law — a muscular intellectual engagement with religious texts.

And it is true over the course of my career, it' s actually impossible to count the number of times that the terms, Talmudic and Jesuitical, have been used to characterize particularly detailed discussions about how a specific legal principle should be interpreted or applied.

Thus, one can conclude, Waxman believes a religious and moral sensibility guides the role of lawyers during a time of lawlessness in the greater society.

I'm grateful for Seth Waxman's work for the innocent this Thanksgiving Day.

And to my many friends who are members of the Wisconsin Bar, I ask today for them to listen at some point to the words of Seth Waxman advocating for the innocent, video below.

To help with the Dassey commutation and pardon petition now before Gov Evers, see the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law; Bluhm Legal Clinic, Wrongful Convictions of Youth.

Specifically, all Wisconsin citizens are urged to write a letter in support of Brendan Dassey's petition for a pardon or commutation.

Letter should be addressed to:

Governor Tony Evers
115 East
State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702

Seth Waxman advocating for clemency for Brendan Dassey on Oct 2, 2019 in Madison, Wisconsin. Video is below; [See also Bring Brendan Home.]:

Jun 25, 2018

Making a Murderer Victim Is Denied Hearing from United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court denies the petition of
Brandan Dassey, an innocent who will remain in prison for
life. Case is highlighted at the bottom of above Court image.

Wisconsin Republicans lead defense for wrongful convictions such as Dassey's

The United States Supreme Court will not hear the case of Brendan Dassay, who was coerced as a 16-year-old into uttering a false confession that is featured in the 2015 Making a Murderer documentaries.

The so-called confession is the sole basis for the conviction of Dassey. The interrogation was conducted by demonstrably corrupt and dishonest investigators who promised Dassey that he could go back to his high-school class if he could just clear up a question. This led to Dassey’s conviction in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach.

Writes atty Jerome Buting in May:

The Court refused to grant cert in Dassey's petition, and its refusal came with a simple list of cases denied, a quiet snuffing out of a man's life, (highlighted at bottom of image, at right).

Wisconsin law enforcement, as with the rest of the nation, attracts Republicans and criminal personality types for whom prosecuting and imprisoning innocent people is seen a means to establish careers and gratifying a need to harm people.

The United States Supreme Court denies the petition of
Brandan Dassey, an innocent who will remain in prison for
life. Case is highlighted at the bottom of above Court image.

The Dassey case is featured along with another wrongful prosecution, Steven Avery, in the Making a Murderer series.

Len Kachinsky, Dassey's attorney, threw Dassey, a cognitively challenged 16-year-old, to two criminal investigators, Mark Wiegert, (sergeant at the Calumet County Sheriff's Office), and Tom Fassbender (Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation investigator), who in 2005 weren't looking for the truth but trying to get Dassey to mutter words portrayed as admissions of guilt and supporting a lurid, contrived tale of guilt of Avery in the revenge prosecution (Ferek, Appleton Post-Crescent).

Wiegert, Fassbender and former District Attorney and sex offender Ken Kratz contrived a case against two men whom they knew to be innocent.

Republican-led state police organizations in 2008 awarded Wiegert and Fassbender actual awards for their work in railroading innocent people.

As noted here previously, in America there exists a hostile and deceitful domestic police force, a careerist, conviction-at-any-costs prosecutorial ethos, racism and taboo ethics in the criminal justice system, and a commitment of district attorneys to defend wrongful convictions irrespective of truth or any consideration of justice present conditions perfect for mass incarceration constituting a "leviathan unmatched in human history," (Glenn C. Loury, Boston Review).

We're there, people.

Consider if your daughter, brother, father or mother were wrongfully convicted. Who stands with you then?

Think it could not happen to you? It happened to Penny Brummer in 1994, a young military veteran wrongfully convicted by a Dane County jury because in part she is an out lesbian.

Ask the family of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, 1968-2009) (1923-2010), (Cary, Rollcall). The reader will have a full-blooded understanding of a Brady violation.

Ask the mother of Madison, Wisconsin's Penny Brummer: Interrogated, defamed, arrested, convicted and sentenced to what amounts to a life sentence.

Contrary to popular wisdom we live in a land of the Sovereign (the people of the state and not the law) and bad faith and deceit on the part of law enforcement are a huge part of the problem.

I'm thankful for the Richard Posners, the Sidney Powells (there is a force of nature), and the Alex Kozinski for shining lights on not a democracy, but a brutal prison state. And am always mindful of I.F. Stone's admonition: "Every government is run by liars. Nothing they say should be believed." First read this quote in 1985 on a large poster that used to occupy a prominent place of the late Erwin Knoll's (NYT) wall at the Progressive Magazine, a journal carrying out this legacy and reporting the truth to this day.

The only route for Dassey now is a pardon from a new Wisconsin governor if one is elected in November. It's a long shot.

Feb 21, 2018

Wisconsin Supreme Court Election — Madison Pushes Turn-out as Progressive-Liberal Candidates Win 54 Percent of Votes

Looming over Wisconsin's Supreme Court race is Gov.
Scott Walker, reviled for selling out the state to dark
money and corporate special interests. The Spring
general election will be held April 3.
Wisconsin election shows Blue Wave amassing


Madison, Wisconsin—Led by record-breaking voter turn-outs in Madison that saw numerous precincts scrambling for more ballots, two Supreme Court candidates dubbed Sandernistas, combined for 54 percent of the vote against a Scott Walker-backed extremist.

Rebecca Dallet and Michael Screnock will advance to the April 3 general election, as progressive Tim Burns' supporters signaled their intention to defeat Screnock.

Progressive-liberal voters prevailing over Screnock is another sign the national Blue Wave is still building.

The Spring Primary race saw massive infusions of dark money and the Republicans' voter-suppression regime that would appear to be insufficient to build a wall against Wisconsin voters after Wisconsin's Lost Decade, 2011-2019 and 13 months of Trump's madness.

Unofficial statewide results from WTMJ-Milwaukee, show

Michael Screnock 46%, 247,480 votes
Rebecca Dallet     36%  191,155 votes
Tim Burns             18%    95,422 votes

At voting sites on Madison's east side to the southwest side, polling stations were running out of ballots around 5:00 p.m.

One polling place in the Meadowood neighborhood (wards 92 and 95), received visits from poll workers from three different neighboring precincts in the course of some 90 minutes, asking for more ballots. The ballots were given, followed by phone calls to the City Clerk's office by the Meadowood chief election inspector.

No reports were made by poll workers of voters having to wait to vote because of no ballots, as election couriers from the City Clerk's office rushed around the city delivering stacks of ballots as city roads iced up after dark.

Logan Wroge of the Wisconsin State Journal reports:

Despite heavy snowfall in northern Wisconsin and flooding in the southern part of the state, Tuesday’s spring primary saw an above-average statewide turnout with 11.7 percent of the voting-age population casting ballots.

In the past two decades, there have been five spring primaries involving state Supreme Court candidates that averaged a 7.3 percent turnout, according to the State Elections Commission. ...

Dane County, which held a handful of local primaries along with the Supreme Court race, saw an 18.7 percent turnout, and 20.3 percent of voting-age Madison residents heading to the polls.
The Madison polling sites running out of ballots were stocked with ballots assuming roughly a 30 percent turn-out, a chief election inspector said last night.

In Dane County the Dallet-Burns combined votes totaled 82.6 percent against 17.3 for Screnock (Dane County, 2018 Spring Primary results, (unofficial)).

The outspoken progressive Tim Burns, whom observers noted pushed Dallet to take several progressive positions, writes this morning:
For the Spring General election on April 3, informed campaign sources in Madison say they expect record campaign spending and record voter turn-out.

Feb 19, 2018

Wisconsin Court Candidate, Tim Burns, Called a Sandernista; "Fine with That," Says the Progressive

Wisconsin Supreme Court
Madison, Wisconsin—The rightwing Republicans and corporatist Wisconsin Democrats are misreading the electorate.

Tim Burns, one of three candidate running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, stands to benefit.

The latest, the rightwing go-to attorney, Rick Esenberg, looks to inject a some late mischief into the Feb. 20 primary by opining non-GOP candidates are "Sandernistas."

The quick-hitting Burns camapign tweets, "I'm fine with that."
Some 12 percent of voters are expected to turn out on Feb. 20.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Election—Tim Burns Towers over Two Opponents

Comment such as that above leave Tim Burns, candidate
for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, labeled a heretic.
The National Review today calls Burns a "Sandernista."

Finally, a, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate calls bull-shite on this farce


Madison, Wisconsin—There is a case decided in 2001 by the nation's highest appellate court that instructs the Wisconsin Supreme Court primary on Feb. 20.

Atwater V. Lago Vista is a Fourth Amendment case in which a mother and her two young children, three- and five-years old, were pulled over by an over-zealous Texas cop, verbally abused, and arrested in front of multiple, gathering witnesses who all confirmed the same story: Young children were traumatized and cried, as their mother was arrested by a vicious police officer for a traffic violation.

"The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrant-less arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seat-belt violation punishable only by a fine. We hold that it does not," the United States Supreme Court held 5-4

A powerful dissent by Justices O’Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer notes the demise of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and security in this "severe intrusion on an individual’s liberty," (as custodial arrests are), in a decision preceding 9/11 by five months, after which for other reasons: Good bye, Fourth Amendment and hello, American police state.

Atwater is animated by a general disdain the state and federal courts have towards the liberties of Americans against police incursions. For all the fluff about 'land of the free,' after Atwater, the Fourth Amendment barely exists today.

With respect to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election tomorrow, three candidates are on the ballot, two of whom will continue as candidates in the April 3 Spring general election.

Only one candidate, Tim Burns, cares about the liberties and humanity of Gail Atwater of Texas, brutalized by a cop.

Tim Burns

Tim Burns, has made concern for citizens against powerful interests the basis of his campaign.

The only appellate attorney in the race, Burns acclaims the primacy of voters' rights, the right to safe, clean water, civil liberties and citizens' right to an impartial judiciary among other liberties that 20 years ago were not controversial in Wisconsin.

Rebecca Dallet

Rebecca Dallet is a judge pretending the Wisconsin Supreme Court is a trial court.

Dallet's tendency to mislead the electorate plays well politically with some of the state Party and legal establishment.

But Dallet's record belies her claim to instructive experience for Wisconsin's top appellate court, as a bulwark for citizen liberties against unlawful lower courts, and the corporation and police interests for whom jurists like Dallet work.

Dallet is the presiding judge in Wisconsin v. Ryan Erik Diggins, (2003), (overturned on appeal)), in which Dallet found blacks leaning against a wall were engaging in suspicious conduct because racist Milwaukee police said so.

Under Dallet's black-hence-suspicious theory of liberty and people, one can understand how America has evolved into a police state.

Dallet is the problem, so it's no surprise Dallet donated $2,500 to he Koch brothers' chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This is how Dallet thinks about the world, a land with little rights dominated by Koch brothers-approved stooges.

Michael P. Screnock

Michael P. Screnock is manifestly unqualified, directly funded by corporate Wisconsin. In the Republicans' view of Wisconsin, privacy and liberty claims are of no moment.

This is a moment for Wisconsin.

But if 15 percent of the electorate votes on Feb. 20, I will be quite surprised.

Dec 12, 2017

Making of a Murderer Appellate Decision Shows American Police State at Work

Image -Kathe Kollwitz, (1867-1945). Kollwitz is a major
anti-fascist artist who lived in Germany.
Update: Judges David Hamilton, Frank Easterbrook, Michael Kanne and Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit are dishonest people. Hamilton in his rush to reverse the federal court decision that would have freed Brendan Dassey confused Bobby Dassey with his older brother, Brendan Dassey. JFC. Critical reading.
---
When Richard Posner announced his resignation from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in September 2017, it was clear real people would get hurt in his absence from the bench.

Posner blew the whistle on the federal judiciary, telling Adam Liptak in the New York Times that judges are not-so-judicious and often vicious: "there are others who are just, you know, reactionary beasts. They’re reactionary beasts because they want to manipulate the statutes and the Constitution in their own way," said Posner.

Posner had people like the innocent-and-convicted-anyway Brendan Dassey in mind.

Dassey was railroaded by east-central Wisconsin human garbage and convicted of crimes of which the cops knew Dassey to be innocent. The case drew outrage after it was featured in Making of a Murderer.

The conviction was reversed this year in federal court. Now, reactionary beasts on the Seventh Circuit reinstated the conviction in (16-3397), Dassey v. Dittman last week.

There is almost never accountability for the inhumane infliction against the innocent. Police and prosecutors remain immune to virtually any crime they inflict.

In Dassey v. Dittman, Judges David Hamilton, Frank Easterbrook, Michael Kanne and Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit are reactionary beasts, dishonestly and indifferently snuffing out an innocent, young life.

I wish Posner had been around for just a few months more.

Writes James Warren:

It's ironic — maybe tragic — that Richard Posner, generally conceded to be perhaps the most influential judge-academic of his generation and the most influential judge not on the Supreme Court, suddenly and surprisingly quit the Chicago appeals court and retired in September at a still prolific 78. If he were around, the odds are that he would have voted with the dissenters, made it 4-4 and thus affirmed the earlier reversal of Dassey's conviction.

But no. Dassey will remain in prison, it would appear, until he dies. It might prompt you to download the Netflix series. And, as you watch, be reminded of the strengths of journalism — but how even the most meticulously detailed conclusions can lead ultimately to exasperation, not satisfaction, and precious little attention. 

So, an innocent life is extinguished, Dassey is gone, unless the United States Supreme Court accepts his case when it's appealed.

Exasperation, disgust, and revulsion are features thinking people note in examining the United States criminal justice system. These are not emotions in this context, they're a formless creature of malice and indifference that is the American criminal justice system that exudes what it inflicts.

Whether the victim is Penny Brummer, or Brendan Dassey, the perpetrators are cops and prosecutors, and we are mostly by-standers.

Jun 25, 2015

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare, Rejects Activist Rightwingers

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare, in a blow to rightwing activists and a political victory for the Obama administration cementing an accomplishment that sociologist and historian Paul Starr notes in 2010, is a "stunning historical achievement and the most important liberal reform since the 1960s" (Mal Contends).

The case is David King, et al., Petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell (No. 14-114). See also David King, et al., Petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell at the Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School.

The Court upheld Obamacare that had been challenged on the basis that five words out of a massive law demanded its destruction.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor to form a 6-3 majority.

Some six million Americans faced losing their healthcare insurance had the Court ruled against the ACA.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.

Justice Scalia penned a dissenting opinion joined by rightwing activists justices, Thomas and Alito, that even for the often peevish Scalia reads as petulant and polemical. "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," writes Scalia (p.47).

Scalia's currency on the Court has been declining in recent years as his increasingly incoherent opinions have veered into what Judge Richard Posner derided as "gotcha' jurisprudence," as described in Posner's book Reflections on Judging (Harvard University Press. 2013) (p.182).

Many legal observers prior to today's decision doubted that the Court would follow Scalia as Scalia has devolved into a radical and activist ideologue; see "A Court of One" (Murphy, Simon & Schuster). (Greenhouse, NYT) (See also Moncrieff, The New Republic; and Lithwick, Slate).

President Obama Delivered a Statement on Today's Affordable Care Act Ruling

Apr 8, 2015

Wisconsin Voters' Comprehension of Top Court Is Shameful

Pleased to read Justice Ann Walsh Bradley win reelection to the Wisconsin Supreme Court (Hall, Wisconsin State Journal).

Repulsed to see what Bradley had to do to win against an odious opponent, Rock County Circuit Judge James Daley.

Because of the political culture prevailing among the citizenry, the state's top appellate court members are elected in accordance to their endorsements (and money spent) by special interests.

These special interests ought to offer no weight.

For example, Bradley felt compelled to note prominently, "300 Sheriffs, Police Chiefs, DAs, and Judges" endorse her candidacy.

What precisely does a sheriff or a police chief know about appellate procedures and duties in which which the Supreme Court reviews lower court judgments and opinions?

Why does a justice list classes of likely litigants (such as district attorneys) and then make a claim (buried in a campaign webpage) to "apply the law in order to reach a fair and impartial decision, free from ideological or political considerations or bias?"

To win.

Justice Bradley was lucky the usual dark-money suspects—Club for Growth, and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce—sat out this race.

Worse for Wisconsin is the fact that Bradley is better than most in vocally committing to impartiality and fair application of the law.

Sheriffs, Police Chiefs and DAs corrupt the process every bit as much as Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and should refuse endorsement of political candidates (especially judges) out of fidelity to their own offices and public trust.

I wouldn't count on this happening any time soon of course.

Judges, Sheriffs, Police Chiefs and DAs are crooks and liars in putative service to an electorate steeped in ignorance and bigotry, not exactly a reformist environment pushing public officials toward the rule of law and public integrity.

May 13, 2014

Book Review: The Federal Prosecutor, An American Horror Story

Licensed to Lie by former Assistant
United States Attorney and Chief of
of the Appellate Section for the
Western and Northern Districts of Texas,
U.S. Department of Justice
At no time in modern American legal history has this book been needed as urgently.

"Overcriminalization is a dangerous trend that should alarm everyone. With over 4,450 crimes scattered throughout the federal code, and hundreds of thousands more hidden in federal regulations, “doing the right thing” just isn’t enough to keep you on the right side of the law. Every day people can become overcriminalization victims in a heartbeat and the consequences can be devastating," notes the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

In Sidney Powell's Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (Brown Books Publishing Group, 2014) the villain is the United States Department of Justice and a host of federal judges.

In tales rivaling legal thrillers by John Grisham, Ms. Powell cogently lays out stories of death, and corruption plaguing the DoJ in this non-fiction account of the betrayal of America.

The stories are familiar to us as recent history—the Enron collapse and the wrongful prosecution of a beloved U.S. Senator—but what we think we know is turned on its head.

With this work, the former federal prosecutor and appellate attorney Ms. Powell stands among the great whistleblowers in modern American history as she exposes the injustices and inhumanities perpetrated by the self-aggrandizing members of two federal DoJ Task Forces, who had a license to lie and destroy innocent lives.

Many jurists already know of Sidney Powell's brilliance and dedication, and Licensed to Lie should be required reading for every high school political science class, every undergraduate college constitutional law class and is a must-read for any American with a passing interest in freedom.

No one reading this work—with a jaw-dropping foreword written by Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—can do so without being appalled.

Ms. Powell working in various capacities in defense of the innocent faced down prosecutors acting as a veritable Star Chamber in some instances, aided by an oppressive judiciary, unyielding and obtuse.

Powell names the names, and tells the facts, and nothing in the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) ought to be the same after this story is told of criminal justice as an American horror story.

Lawful duties of federal prosecutors such as the disclosure of exculpatory information to the defense (the Brady Rule), were abandoned in the quest to secure criminal convictions of innocent people.

In roughly the same timeframe as the Enron Task Force, DoJ prosecutors from the Public Integrity Section (PIN) of Main Justice targeted U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska; 1968-2009) in a prosecution so contrived, the presiding federal judge, Emmet Sullivan, ordered a special prosecutor empaneled to investigate the prosecution.

The DoJ PIN in this period operated an ongoing investigation into alleged public corruption in Alaska, nicknamed Polar PEN, begun in 2004.

Sidney Powell chronicles the criminal prosecutions and miscarriage of justice committed by Polar PEN, resulting in at least one suicide, the unlawful and wrongful 2008 conviction (later set aside at the request of Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009) of World War II hero and Senator Ted Stevens in a repulsive tableau of prosecutorial misconduct.

"I wondered how much the Enron Task Force had collaborated with the Polar Pen prosecutors and  who had concocted all of these overly creative cases without crimes as bogus 'honest services' allegations. The prosecutors had obviously cross-pollinated to produce baseless crimes and tortured law in both major investigations. The Enron Task Force cabal had about a two-year head start on Polar PEN, but the investigators and prosecutions overlapped for several years," writes Powell. (pp. 238-239)

Similar cases of prosecutorial torture of federal statute occurred in the contemporaneous U.S. Attorneys scandal as the creative employment of the Honest Services statute was used by unscrupulous U.S. attorneys such as Steven Biskupic.

Honest services. This is an ironic statute used by prosecutors who have no conception of honesty and even less regard for public service.

We can be grateful to Judge Richard Posner, of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for writing an important opinion this last January (Fields v. Wharrie, 2014) establishing the right of the wrongfully convicted to sue corrupt prosecutors, who in Posner's opinion, no longer enjoy the absolute immunity used by prosecutors as a license to lie.

Every prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence, as demonstrated by Powell, should face a civil action.

Powell's appellate brief on Honest Services devastated the DoJ's use of its myriad honest services prosecutions, but Powell’s work is about the innocent and the prosecutors, guilty of betrayal.

Someone should write about Sidney Powell, the advocate from the south who just blew the lid off the hidden history of the judiciary and the American prosecutor.

(A longer version of this review appeared here in April 2014.)

Apr 27, 2014

Book Review: The Federal Prosecutor, An American Horror Story

Licensed to Lie by former Assistant
United States Attorney and Chief of
of the Appellate Section for the
Western and Northern Districts of Texas,
U.S. Department of Justice
In Sidney Powell's Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (Brown Books Publishing Group, 2014) the villain is the United States Department of Justice and a host of federal judges.

In tales that would rival any legal thrillers or action-packed novels by John Grisham or Nelson DeMille, Ms. Powell systematically and cogently lays out stories of death, deceit, and corruption plaguing the DoJ in this non-fiction account of the betrayal of America.

The stories are somewhat familiar to us as recent history—the Enron collapse and the wrongful prosecution of the longest-serving Republican U.S. Senator in history—but what we think we know is turned on its head as we learn what really happened.

With this work, the former federal prosecutor and appellate attorney Ms. Powell stands among the great whistleblowers in modern American history as she exposes the injustices and inhumanities perpetrated by the self-aggrandizing members of two federal DoJ task forces, who truly had a license to lie and to destroy innocent lives without any federal prosecutor having conscience enough to even acknowledge the suffering they caused.

Many jurists already know of Sidney Powell's brilliance and dedication, and Licensed to Lie should be required reading for every high school political science class, every undergraduate college constitutional law class and a must-read for any American of whatever political persuasion with a passing interest in freedom.

No one reading this work can do so without being appalled by the intentional and repeated injustices inflicted onto the innocent.

Steven J. Phillips published No Heroes, No Villains (Vintage, 1978) explaining the procedures of criminal law in a gripping account of a real-life criminal law, murder case. Phillips' classic work today is quaint. In today's culture, the American prosecutor is not a friend, not a force dedicated to justice, and in a civilized and truthful explication is a villain.

"The right to do what the law does not prohibit, without fear of harassment or punishment, is one of the hallmarks of a free society." —Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (foreword)

"I wondered if my friends, Judges Carl Stewart, Jacques Wiener, and, Pete Benavides, along with (Judge) Ewing Werlein, who denied all our motions for release twice, even knew, considered, or cared about what their wrong decision had done to this young man [the proven-innocent Bill Fuhs, represented by Seth Waxman] and his family." —Sidney Powell, Licensed to Lie (p. 144)

Enron Task Force

The Houston-based Enron Company morphed from a hard asset pipeline company into a sociopathic energy-trading company in the 1990s, led by Jeffrey Skilling and Chief Financial Office, Andrew Fastow. (p. 13)

In 2001, Enron—with its myriad equity funds, frauds and shell games—imploded into the largest corporate collapse in United States history.

This collapse was a good thing for some, a perfect opportunity to make careers for a collection of prosecutors lacking ethics and working pathologically in pursuit of power—their own power.

Find some people, make up crimes, prosecute these people, and these innocents and their families will just have to suffer.

This is precisely what occurred, during the Enron Task Force prosecutions that saw innocent Americans implacably pursued by a criminal, out-of-control band of prosecutors operating under cover of the United States of America.

As noted by Sidney Powell, "Incited by public outrage, political pressure and cries for vindication from Enron shareholders, the Department of Justice promptly [January 2002] assembled the Enron Task Force—a joint effort of the department, the SEC, the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Because of the Bush connection to Ken Lay, the Enron Task Force was untethered from the department." (p. 25)

The Task Force was staffed with ambitious prosecutors from across the country, and was given virtually unlimited resources.

The Task Force was also untethered from ethical adult supervision and prosecutors looking to make a career from the ashes of Enron determined to get somebody, anybody in their pursuit of a group of innocents, along with the perpetrators at Enron.

Ms. Powell working in various capacities in defense of the innocent (particularly James Brown of Merrill Lynch) worked tirelessly in her advocacy, facing the corruption of the prosecutors of the Task Force acting as a veritable Star Chamber in some instances, aided by an oppressive judiciary in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, so unyielding and committed to letting obvious injustices go uncorrected that this brilliant veteran jurist, Sidney Powell, witnessed the physical disintegration of innocent people and their families as an oblivious nation immersed by the trauma of 9/11 never knew their story, until now.

Powell names the names, (Task Force leaders and prosecutors, Leslie Caldwell, Andrew Weissmann and Matthew Friedrich, for example) and tells the facts, and nothing in the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) ought to be the same after this story is told of American criminal justice as an American horror story inflicted by federal prosecutors.

Any impediments, lawful duties of federal prosecutors such as the disclosure of exculpatory information to the defense (the Brady Rule), were abandoned in the frenzied quest to secure criminal convictions of innocent people.

The former federal prosecutor, Powell, concludes: "As long as they [a small group of federal prosecutors] are free from accountability, the innocent are at risk and the public can have no confidence in our legal system." (p. 403)

Polar PEN

In roughly the same timeframe as the Enron Task Force was unleashed, overzealous DoJ prosecutors from the Public Integrity Section (PIN) of Main Justice targeted U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska; 1968-2009) in a prosecution so disingenuous and self-consciously artificial that the presiding federal judge, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan (aided in part by an FBI agent who blew the whistle on the prosecutors), after learning of massive and systemic withholding of exculpatory evidence by federal prosecutors, ordered a special prosecutor (Henry F. Schuelke III) be empaneled to investigate the criminal wrongdoing of the prosecution.

The DoJ PIN in this period operated an ongoing investigation into alleged public corruption in Alaska, nicknamed Polar PEN, begun in 2004.

Sidney Powell chronicles the criminal prosecutions and blatant miscarriage of justice caused and committed by Polar PEN, that resulted in at least one suicide, heroic whistle-blowing of prosecutorial misconduct by a FBI agent, Chad Joy, the unlawful and wrongful 2008 conviction (later set aside at the request of Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009) of World War II hero and Senator Ted Stevens that ruined Stevens' political career, and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the prosecutorial misconduct.

Two main perpetrators of Polar PEN are Matthew Friedrich and Rita Glavin. who took over control and manipulated the prosecution of Stevens, but who, Powell notes, "were way too politically connected and savvy to take the fall." (p. 8)

The failure of the Polar PEN prosecutors of Stevens to turn over exculpatory evidence the prosecution had in its possession should have landed the bunch of legal thugs in prison; the Polar PEN persecutors were guilty though not ultimately held accountable, the grisly suicide of Nicholas Marsh, PEN prosecutor notwithstanding, who found himself on the wrong side of a criminal investigation.

Marsh committed suicide after being investigated for his (and several others') criminal withholding of exculpatory evidence from Sen. Stevens.

Cases without Crimes

"I wondered how much the Enron Task Force had collaborated with the Polar Pen prosecutors and  who had concocted all of these overly creative cases without crimes as bogus 'honest services' allegations. The prosecutors had obviously cross-pollinated to produce baseless crimes and tortured law in both major investigations. The Enron Task Force cabal had about a two-year head start on Polar PEN, but the investigators and prosecutions overlapped for several years," writes Powell. (pp. 238-239)

Powell does not put the corruption of these atrocities in the context of American legal history, in the context of what Attorney General Robert H. Jackson warned federal prosecutors about in his memorable April 1, 1940 address: "Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character. Whether one seeks promotion to a judgeship, as many prosecutors rightly do, or whether he returns to private practice, he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just."

It's for the reader to decide the relevancy of jurists like Jackson.

Nor does Powell mention the contemporaneous U.S. Attorneys scandal though the creative employment of the Honest Services statute was used extensively by unscrupulous U.S. attorneys such as Steven Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2001-2008) in his infamous Georgia Thompson prosecution, a case without a crime reversed in oral arguments in a spectacular action by a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2007.

Wrote Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook: "Thompson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 as well as under § 666. Section 1341 forbids 'any scheme or artifice to defraud' that predictably employs the United States mails. What 'fraud' did Thompson commit, and who was the victim? Thompson did not bilk the state out of any money or pocket any of the funds that were supposed to be used. ... (I)n response to McNally v. United States, ... Congress enlarged the scope of criminal fraud by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346. This statute provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. ... It is linguistically possible to understand 'private gain' as whatever adds to the employee's income or psyche-anything the employee would pay to have, rather than pay to avoid-but the Rule of Lenity counsels us not to read criminal statutes for everything they can be worth. ... Thompson's conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal." (U.S. v. Georgia L. Thompson, argued and decided on April 5, 2007)

Honest services. This is an ironic statute used by a gang of outlaw prosecutors who have no conception of honesty and even less regard for public service.

We can be grateful to Judge Richard Posner, also of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for writing an important opinion this last January (Fields v. Wharrie, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1333) that establishes the right of the wrongfully convicted to sue corrupt prosecutors, who in Posner's opinion, no longer enjoy the absolute immunity used by prosecutors as a license to lie.

Every prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence, as demonstrated by Powell, should face a civil action from his and her victims.

Powell's appellate brief on Honest Services devastated the DoJ's use of its myriad "honest services" prosecutions in several cases, a catch-all invention that these prosecutors used for its apparent fun and their profit. (pp. 298-99)

But the suffering endured by the many innocents she describes, and the utter lack of integrity, fair play and justice by the federal prosecutors leave Ms. Powell without faith in the American legal system as a forum where justice might be attained.

Outside of a small group of jurists, and friends and family of the innocents, who among us knows and cares that deceitful federal prosecutors remain free as victims struggle to build shattered lives?

Powell throws this question to the reader:
The games and tactics of (federal prosecutors) Friedrich, Ruemmler, Weissmann, Caldwell, and others on the Enron Task Force should never have been tolerated by the Houston federal judiciary or by the Fifth Circuit—much less invigorated by Friedrich and Glavin as heads of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice to pervert the trial of a United States Senator. There is no telling how many others have been or will be wrongfully convicted as this cabal of corrupt cronies ambitiously climbs and weaves through the highest ranks of the Department of Justice, the FBI and the White House—in between their powerful partnerships in some of our country's most prestigious and influential law firms.

What happened to the defendants in this book can happen to anyone. Blind judges do not render blind justice.

If it were your husband, your sister, your child on trial, what should the rules be? Should the prosecutors be required to disclose everything that only he possesses that is favorable to the defense? Should those who are supposed to enforce the laws be required to abide by them?

Senate Bill 2197, the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act (codifying the Brady Rule), is still sitting in Congress. It would create a clear rule that federal prosecutors must produce all evidence favorable to the defense. (pp. 402-403)
Its fate, and the fate of justice is ultimately up to the American people.

The United States of America seems to have lost its way; it surely has lost its moral compass as the prosecutor and the judiciary inflict grievous harm onto innocent people in the name of justice.

A problem for the public is that what Sidney Powell writes about, what Powell warns us about, occurred and is occurring off the public's radar, beyond our awareness and thus beyond the reach of decency and the rule of law that could not be found by the innocent.

Dec 1, 2013

Book Review: Richard Posner's Path Not Taken

Richard Posner's Reflections on Judging
(Harvard University Press. 2013)
Richard Posner's book Reflections on Judging (Harvard University Press. 2013) is an apologist account of his years on the bench.

The scholar turned judge wants to think that he has been a thoughtful and prudent jurist but on major occasions that he had the opportunity to be on the right side of history, he balked.

The depersonalization, the dehumanization, of the citizens by the court has been furthered under his judgeship. And he doesn't even seem to realize it on reflection.

Richard Posner is one of some 187 federal appellate judges.

He was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and still serves today.

Appointed along with John Shabaz (District Court, Western District of Wisconsin) and a host of ideological nominees to the federal judiciary by Reagan, Posner's assumption to the bench came during the first fruit bore by the Federalist Society, GOP Party hacks like Shabaz, and the U.S. Department of Justice that became a breeding ground for those seeing the judiciary as a means to power ... period, right-wing judicial activists. Witness Chief Justice John Roberts.

Posner skated around Reagan's fronting for the hard right, maybe out of loyalty.

The difference between Shabaz, a genuine misanthropist, and Posner is the difference between open contempt and indifference toward fellow citizens.

Richard A. Posner takes judicial policy making seriously, but reading Reflections on Judging, while aware of Posner's intellect is an exercise in disgust.

There are less thoughtful approaches to American jurisprudence in our society today; there are malicious approaches evolving in unpredictable ways, yielding results threatening the foundation of America, the expansive liberties of her citizens.

Posner seems unmindful as a judge, and amicable and generous as an author.

Posner attempts to explain to the lay reader some elements of appellate jurisprudence, what makes opinion writing a useful enterprise, and deserves praise for the result. I mean how many citizens concern themselves with what the judiciary does, at least since the grassroots movement against Robert Bork in 1987.

In reading Posner one wonders if he is unaware of the injury jurisprudence can inflict unto the human beings constituting the citizenry of the U.S.

It's easy to understand why Posner cites Robert H. Jackson and Louis Brandeis as jurists and intellectuals in history whom he admires. Less easy to explain why Posner never acted with the same thoughtful manner. Reflections is no help here.

But Posner was never a civil libertarian; he essentially did nothing for social justice in life and as an academic, so it's no surprise in reading Reflections that Posner labored over his work as a judge, mindful that that the law serves entities in this country—human beings—while reaching results that are both appalling and illogical.

Posner advocates the approach of  "legal realism" in judging both at the appellate and trial level.

In Reflections on Judging, Posner explains why "legal formalism," "originalism," "textual originalism," and other given names for fallacious approaches to judging, as epitomized by Justice Antonin Scalia, are "gotcha jurisprudence," (p. 182) and not dispassionate, penetrating examinations of the law.

Posner explains in the same paragraph in Reflections.

Justice Scalia is one of the most politically conservative Supreme Court Justices of the modern era—anyone doubting this should read his vitriolic partial dissent in Arizona v. United States—and he is the intellectual leader of the conservative Justices on the current Supreme Court. Yet he claims that his judicial votes are generated by an objective interpretive methodology (the only objective methodology, he claims) and that because it is objective, ideology, including his own fervent ideology, plays no role. Obviously statutory text itself is not inherently liberal or conservative. But textualism is conservative. A legislature is thwarted when a judge refuses to apply its handiwork to an unforeseen situation that is encompassed by the statute's aim but does not make a smooth fit with its text. Ignoring the limitations of foresight, and also that statute is a collective product that may leave many questions of interpretation to be answered by the courts because the enacting legislators didn't agree on the answers, the textual originalist demands that the legislature think through myriad hypothetical scenarios and provide for all of them explicitly rather than rely on courts to be sensible. Textual originalism is 'gotcha' jurisprudence. (p.182)

The jurisprudence of Scalia—dressed up as a quasi-scientific methodology—poses as an epistemological search in which appellate judges committed to originalism occupy an elevated perch, in Scalia's view, and to Posner's scorn.

Scalia poses, regaling in his perception capable of ascertaining the statute, where others refuse to see this dedication.

But Scalia and his statist, superstitious moralism often neglect the American citizen whom Scalia does not take seriously.

Reading Posner's Reflections, sure it's easy to think of Robert Jackson (pp 257-258) and other jurists' concern for the litigant in cases involving civil liberties, the citizen endowed with expansive rights against the state.

In Posner's Seventh Circuit as an example, we have brilliant jurists like Jackson, Diane Wood, Frank Easterbrook and of course Posner.

And the Seventh Circuit has also seen the worst of jurisprudence—for example, Wisconsin's late Judge John Shabaz who terrorized and abused criminal defendants and attorneys during his reign from 1981 to 2009.

In the Robert W. Kastenmeier U.S. Courthouse, federal magistrates often preceded Shabaz' arrival and would presumptively offer a manner of judicial succor, explaining to the courtroom in effect that Judge Shabaz would often bully attorneys and litigants for any or no reason.

Anyone sentient saw in Shabaz' willful, mean-spirited actions a fundamental misunderstanding of what a courtroom is supposed to represent in America, the rule of law as a shield against the cruel tyranny of the power of the state, of the judiciary.

Local Madison, Wisconsin, journalists wrote occasionally about Shabaz' misanthropy in astonishment, as many citizens who had become aware or experienced Shabaz waited and hoped for his retirement or death. This judge was a human repudiation of Article III of the Constitution.

Shabaz is worth mentioning here, not because his opinions were often overturned by the Seventh Circuit [though they were, especially in civil rights cases], rather because Shabaz' aspirations and personal manner are in direct opposition to Posner's.

We are led to believe that Posner is concerned with people, whom the law and the courts ought to serve.


I don't know if Posner knew about this situation in Madison, Wisconsin; I do believe he would have been appalled, but Posner deserves no praise for remaining blind.

Posner's legal realism leads to some consideration of what people are as citizens of the United States, as human beings.

That's a pretty low bar for a judge.

What this country has endowed its citizens with, rights, are the foundation supported by constant affirmation of citizens' humanity. How society lawfully treats human beings, what social scientific evidence demonstrate, and the thought experiments often heard at oral arguments are what could have made Posner a brilliant judge, had he chosen to go that way.

When Posner is not conversant about many topics, it bothers him, or so it is implied in Reflections. Still, Reflections, as edifying a book as it is, reads more like an aspiration of what Posner could have been as jurist, as against his record.

Consider one critical case on which we know Posner has erred badly, to which he admits failure of imagination and empathy, inhumanity, of ability to ascertain.

"I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion (affirmed by the Supreme Court) upholding Indiana's requirement that prospective voters prove their identity with a photo id—a law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention." (pp. 8485) [Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board (2008) was later disavowed by its author, Justice Stevens, after his retirement.]
 
The repercussions for protecting voter rights of Americans against the Republican and Tea Party in Crawford are stunning, but Posner offers only a weak rumination about how difficult gathering information can be in the modern world for federal litigation. 

This is not only a cop-out on Posner's part but clearly shows how weak he is on standing up for a citizen's rights in the face of the so-called justice system. The scholar sees so much as impenetrable. 

Posner asserts the complexity brought by advances in technological fields means that subject matter experts often have difficulty making a judge understand the salient issues. Posner, in other journals, has explained that he can't just give up and go home. He has to rule on what is before him.

Judges are, or should be, selected on the basis of their ability to sort through complex issues, so for Posner to argue that an issue before the court is too complex for him to understand is an abdication of the function of the court. Judges have an obligation to study an issue until they understand it. Surely a man of Posner's intellect can accomplish this. Judges have every expert at their disposal, analytical resources, clerks, libraries. Even in this position of privilege, Posner I swear comes across as whining.

Consider human empathy.

Without empathy, an element both Scalia and Posner find irrelevant, the rule of law dissolves as a protector and extension of the citizenry. So, we can understand Crawford in the context as a lack of empathy, as the civil rights movement reminded America voting is part of humanity.

A local Alabama or Mississippi judge hearing a case on a civil rights violation in 1963 could not render an opinion, the racist state power structures made this impossible. The same held true with most of the south, though federal appellate judges as John Minor Wisdom somehow managed to see through the suffocating cloak of racism during this period.

Consider a more contemporary case, Atwater V. Lago Vista (2001), in which a mother and her two young children, three- and five-years old, were pulled over, verbally abused, and arrested in front of gathering witnesses who all confirmed the same story: Young children became traumatized and cried, as their mother was arrested by a vicious police officer for a traffic violation.

"The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine. We hold that it does not."
 —The Court 5-4

As for empathy. Justice Souter for the Court: "The arrest and booking were inconvenient and embarrassing to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment."

Inconvenient and embarrassing.

Justice O’Connor, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissented:

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Court recognizes that the arrest of Gail Atwater was a 'pointless indignity' that served no discernible state interest, ... and yet holds that her arrest was constitutionally permissible. Because the Court’s position is inconsistent with the explicit guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, I dissent. ... The Court neglects the Fourth Amendment’s express command in the name of administrative ease. In so doing, it cloaks the pointless indignity that Gail Atwater suffered with the mantle of reasonableness. 
Posner would agree with Souter in this embarrassing case.

People really don't matter all that much, and we just cannot know so much about people under the law.

Posner is no Jackson or Brandeis; he could be but he simply does not allow himself to rise to the occasion.

Keeping his eye on the the prize, human beings with liberties guaranteed throughout the Constitution, makes the non-essential fall away.

I recommend Reflections as thoughtful admissions of failure.

May 18, 2009

Jeffrey Toobin on CJ John Roberts: No More Mr. Nice Guy

Update: See today's 5-4 decision (Ashcroft and Mueller v. Iqbal, 07-1015) for yet another example of the utter disdain the GOP-Roberts wing has for liberty. See SC Turns Back Ex-Detainee’s Suit Over Prison Abuses (NYT).

As speculation continues on Obama's Supreme Court nominee, a must read by Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

In September 2005 Roberts was confirmed 78-22, and the liberty-loving crowd (mainstream journalists call us the "left") figured that we were not going to be hurt as Roberts' predecessor was William Rehnquist. Can't really get worse than Rehnquist.

Not so sure now.