Repeatedly in writing, Thomas and Scalia have questioned the integrity of their colleagues; and accused them of arrogance, lawlessness, license, illegitimate abuse of power, basing decisions on no more than their own personal values, contempt for the Constitution, sowing confusion rather than providing clarity, hypocritically pretending to defend the weak against the powerful while actually favoring the powerful at the expense of the weak, protecting “inconsequential” expression while disdaining the “heart” of the first amendment (the right to criticize officeholders), poisonous and pernicious racism and sexism, belief in black inferiority, placing at risk the lives of good innocent people in order to save the lives of the most vicious and depraved, placing the welfare of terrorists above the lives of soldiers combatting them, mandating “infanticide” (the barbaric killing of “human children”), and numerous other sins.
When pro-murderer justices seek — often successfully — to focus upon criminals rather than crimes, the result is to grant certain perpetrators greater protection against punishment for their brutality than others who commit identical or less serious acts.
As detailed elsewhere, pro-murderer media suppression of the truth has played a major role in enabling a wholesale evisceration of capital punishment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently provided a graphic example, one that would be excruciatingly painful to survivors of murder victims if they knew about it. Many people unfamiliar with the practices and philosophy of the Supreme Court would very likely be shocked to learn just what values some justices hold.
The history of liberal judicial activism has largely been a history of Republican handiwork — in case after case after case, impacting all areas of law (including public safety, crime and capital punishment).
The most important reason for conservatives to support Mitt Romney is that he is not Barack Obama, period. Never before has there been an American president ashamed of his own country. Never before has there been a president with complete contempt for the political and economic principles that made it great.
The ObamaCare decision exposed the Supreme Court as an emperor without clothes. Hoping for deliverance from ObamaCare, many usual critics defended the Court. But with a new term fast approaching, a month before a critical election, Chief Justice Roberts’ handiwork should be remembered as a final wake-up call to consider, once and for all, whether the Court and judicial review merit respect, acceptance and legitimacy.
Upon Paul Ryan’s vice presidential selection, supporters noted his objection that Chief Justice Roberts had “contort[ed] logic and reason to come up with [the ObamaCare] ruling.” Such contortion is nothing unusual except for one thing. The Supreme Court, which normally operates in obscurity, could not escape a glaring spotlight this time, affording a rare opportunity to inform the public about the dark side of what many justices do. This raises questions concerning the utility of elections, what remains of our actual Constitution, the rule of law, and public acceptance of judicial review.
A stunning 7,900-word New York Times article paints a murderer as a sympathetic victim, with little concern for murder victims and their loved ones. The pro-murderer movement hits the big time.
A recent 7,900-word New York Times article singularly illustrates the huge gulf between victims of barbaric crime and the zealous rationalizers of their victimizers. Strongly suggesting that a prisoner’s being “sorry” for the premeditated murder of both his parents should be “enough” to free him, the article would likely repulse most survivors of violent crime, including loved ones of murder victims and others who care about them.
Repulse, but not surprise.
In protecting deceit of the people, the Chief justice has committed a frontal assault on the democratic process, smashing to smithereens his grandiloquent bromide disavowing Court vigilance regarding their alleged political choices.
Collateral damage has resulted from Chief Justice Roberts’ validation of ObamaCare’s assault on individual freedom, the economy, and the country. The comity and unity of the law’s opponents have been shattered, as they have been bitterly divided between his critics and defenders.
Because, in a sense, the broccoli example is a reductio ad absurdum ridiculing ObamaCare’s overreach, the Times, using typical media bias techniques, disingenuously attempts to ridicule this legitimate ridicule.
The New York Times recently ran a sarcastic 2,300-word front-page article denouncing the use of broccoli to illustrate why the ObamaCare individual mandate is unconstitutional. As the reasoning goes, if the government can force individuals to buy health insurance against their will, it can force them to buy anything, including broccoli.
Something is painfully wrong when a person with no prior record can receive a harsh sentence, but someone serving life cannot be penalized for the most barbaric new crimes because he is already permanently incarcerated for the worst depravity.
With no criminal record, Thomas Prusik Parkin recently was sentenced to serve a prison term of 14 to 41 years. His crime included having dressed in his mother’s clothing to deceive others to believe she was still alive, so that he could maintain possession of her home, collect her social security checks ($44,000) and receive rental assistance ($65,000).
At least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, progressives and liberals have seen our anti-tyranny Constitution as an obstacle to imposing their self-presumed superior morality and wisdom on everyone else. So it was unremarkable when, in February, The New York Times disgorged an article trashing the Constitution as an unworthy model for the rest of the world. Remarkable is what was omitted from the responses, which focused on Justice Ginsburg’s urging drafters of new foreign constitutions not to consult the one she took an oath to defend. She and others complained that it did not provide sufficient “rights.”
Unanswered by various critics was law professor Sanford Levinson’s claim that “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any … in the world[.]”
Actually, because justices must be lawyers, the Constitution is easy to amend.
An unbridgeable values chasm exists between victims of the worst crimes and the zealous devotees of their depraved victimizers.
Last month, 18-year-old Alyssa Bustamante, protected from capital punishment by five U.S. Supreme Court justices undemocratically imposing their unrepresentative moral values, was sentenced to mislabeled “life in prison” for the October 2009 murder of 9-year-old neighbor Elizabeth Olten. Four months before that murder, the Court devoted 44 pages to the “embarrassment” of Savana Redding, a 13-year-old searched for illicit drugs.
These and other cases graphically shed light on unelected justices who run our lives.
In common parlance, “getting away with murder” is a metaphor for doing something wrong without suffering deserved adverse consequences. Getting away with actual murder has meant that the killer did not get caught, or else he avoided conviction or appropriate punishment thanks to a good lawyer (often taking advantage of judge-concocted rules favoring guilty defendants).
Because some occupations are hazardous, risking injury and death, Congress enacted the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act to protect workers. While no sane person would advocate avoidable unsafe working conditions for the law-abiding, this sensible view has been grotesquely perverted into an illustration of Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s famous reminder (51) of “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.”
In making the case for judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall pointed out that judges take a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States. Until last month, it would have been unnecessary to stress that he was obviously referring to actual laws, not the unfulfilled fantasies of a lone member of Congress. Nevertheless, on July 7, in a case largely ignored by the media, dissenting Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan carried judicial activism to new heights by advocating a stay of execution on the basis of an imaginary law.
THE MODERN ELITE RULING CLASS NOTION OF JUSTICE Cruel and Unusual Punishment of Victims By Lester Jackson, Ph.D. DOWNLOAD FULL ARTICLE
In a vitriolic column employing the very style for which she attacks Justice Anonin Scalia, Linda Greenhouse repeats the old banal “bad-boy” narrative of a long hostile media. This unanswered charge is misleading in the extreme.
What Greenhouse Wants Readers To Believe
Greenhouse asserts Scalia utterly lacks “pragmatism,” is “angry,” “enraged,” “furious,” “inflammatory,” “bomb-throwing,” “intemperate,” “self-indulgen[t],” “bullying,” and prone to “insults,” “put-downs,” “lashing out,” publicly “thrashing…a junior colleague” and, indeed, “undermin[ing] the court’s … legitimacy.”
Last April’s retirement announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens occasioned an outpouring of adulation: Champion of the Powerless. The Greatest Justice, etc. His absence from the new Supreme Court term renewed the love fest, evoking honor and award for his “open mind.” Liberal judicial activists depict him as an authoritative hero and saint (most recently: 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley and The New York Times’ Adam Liptak).
Make no mistake. If the death penalty is “impossible in some jurisdictions,” it is almost impossible everywhere, including “bloodthirsty” Texas. Homicide does not entail anywhere near the same risk for murderers as for victims. This shocking fact is largely unknown: Between 1972 and 2008, there were 723,000 murders , more than the combined total of battle deaths in all our wars. [2-p43] As of the end of 2009, this resulted in 1,188 lawful executions (0.165%) . Texas had 446 executions for 66,337 murders (0.67%) .
This is not simply a matter of different state court judges.
THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF A JUSTICE’S VALUES
Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens has long been the object of adulation. In 2005, President Ford said he was prepared for his presidency to be judged “exclusively” upon Stevens’ 30-year record. In the dominant media narrative, Stevens is just an old-fashioned and modest conventional Midwestern Republican, as was Ford. If he moved left at all, he is still “in the mainstream.” Jeffrey Toobin reverentially suggests he is “the last” moderate Republican on the Court and in the tradition of Harding and Coolidge.
“Recidivism among murderers does occasionally happen … the only way to prevent all … recidivism is to execute every convicted murderer – a policy no one seriously advocates … Governments that respect … justice and … human dignity… do not use premeditated, violent homicide as an instrument of social policy”
— American Civil Liberties Union
“Governor Huckabee “seemed genuinely surprised that he was held responsible for the criminal acts committed by those whose sentences he had commuted …. The notion … seemed as foreign to him as the idea that he should refuse all leniency.”
— former Huckabee campaign official
AN ERSATZ ISSUE
Serious implications for the capital punishment struggle arise from the hypocrisy of those who demand absolute perfection for convicted murderers but expect, excuse and shrug off imperfections resulting in preventable brutalization of the law-abiding.
The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection
The premise is that irrefutably proving just one wrongful execution would justify, indeed require, abolition of capital punishment. For example, in finally deciding it was always unconstitutional, Justice Blackmun believed (n8) that courts “are unable to prevent human error from condemning the innocent.” The New Mexico and New Jersey Governors signed death penalty repeals partly on the stated ground that it is not “100-percent … perfect…never  wrong … foolproof.”