Justice, Pomo Style: giving justice its proper place

Justice isn't social justice or eco justice as leftist postmodernists have us believe. It's morality, the moral compass, which they prefer we think does not exist: the difference between right and wrong, truth from lie, true or false, good en evil -

Catholic Herald: "Full text: Pope’s address to the Bundestag"

(...) Allow me to begin my reflections on the foundations of law [Recht] with a brief story from sacred Scripture. In the First Book of the Kings, it is recounted that God invited the young King Solomon, on his accession to the throne, to make a request. What will the young ruler ask for at this important moment? Success – wealth – long life – destruction of his enemies? He chooses none of these things. Instead, he asks for a listening heart so that he may govern God’s people, and discern between good and evil (cf. 1 Kg 3:9). (...) Read it all >>>

Sept. 24, 2011
~

Collision course -

Since the regime is above the law and is simply ignoring Judge Vinson's ruling, and continue the implementation of Obama Care as if nothing happened, the Judge is taking action. The American Spectator explains it all (and fun too) -

ABC: "Judge Vinson Clarifies Florida Ruling, Maintains That Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional"

In a harshly worded opinion, Judge Roger Vinson, the Florida federal judge who struck down the entire health care law in January, gave the Obama administration seven days from today to appeal his ruling with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Vinson issued the 20 page ruling today after the Obama administration had asked him to clarify his original opinion and tell the government whether his ruling was meant to strike down provisions of the law currently in effect.

In the ruling Vinson is critical of Justice Department lawyers for waiting nearly two weeks before filing a “motion to clarify.” “While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be,” Vinson wrote, “it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import.” (...) >>>

Mar 3, 2011
~

! Has Obama overreached? -

More - "Obama Administration in contempt of court twice"

Randy's Right: "ALERT…ALERT…ALERT…GINGRICH GIVES OBAMA ‘IMPEACHMENT’ WARNING"

Newt Gingrich has outlined grounds for initiating impeachment hearings against the president for violating his oath of office. Mr. Obama already has been backed into a corner and now we will see how he and the labor unions react to another threat to the demolition of their power base. The perfect storm is upon him and absolute, corrupt power never goes quietly into the night; this is even more dangerous since his foundation comes out of the Chicago political machine and the church teachings of the Rev. Wright.

David DeGerolamo

• Gingrich: Obama Sparks ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Raises Impeachment Specter

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand. (...) >>>

Feb. 25, 2011
~

! Is this the rule of law? -

The Obama regime is just abandoning an existing law, the Defense of Marriage Act, because they don't like it: they've just decided they are not going to enforce it or prosecuting offenders. This is a rogue government.

Answer the question, does anyone really believe that the Founders forbade Congress from using term “marriage” to refer exclusively to a union between man and woman?

! Richard Weltz is going into the O Team's lawlessness in detail in "Obama Completes His Trifecta" -

The Daily Caller: "Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of Defense of Marriage Act in court"

The Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in court, according to a statement released Wednesday signed by Attorney General Eric Holder. According to the statement, President Barack Obama has decided that Section 3, the frequently challenged law that states the federal government must consider marriage a legal union between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

“The department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense,” the statement says. “At the same time, the department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because — as here — the department does not consider every such argument to be a ‘reasonable’ one.

Moreover, the department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.” Holder also writes that he has “informed members of Congress of this decision, so members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option.” (...) >>>

Feb. 24, 2011
~

! The state of anomia -

The Obama administration is increasingly anomic: besides the New Black Panther intimidation cover up (latest here), there's the Louisiana Judge, Martin Feldman who found Feds in contempt for ignoring his ruling on the seven year drilling moratorium. The stakes are even higher in the case of Obamacare, which despite being found unconstitutional, the O Team is carrying on with implementation nonetheless -

Update Feb. 18

Obama regime orders Judge Vinson to tell the states to obey the unconstitutional ObamaCare law he just got through striking down -

Red State: "Obamacare Unconstitutional"

A Reagan appointed federal district judge in Florida has ruled key portions of Obamacare, namely the individual mandate, unconstitutional. Because Congress expressly did not put a severability clause in the legislation, the judge has ruled the whole law unconstitutional.

The left is, naturally, shocked and appalled that the judge did not let the rest of Obamacare stand as a judge in Virginia did. They are calling today’s judge “an extreme activist. Let’s clear this up (...) >>>

Feb. 15, 2011
~

The laws Julian Assange broke -

Human Events: "Like A Condom, The First Amendment Can't Always Protect You", by Ann Coulter

First of all, I feel so much more confident that the TSA's nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldn't even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be getting around to WikiLeaks' proprietor, Julian Assange, just as soon as they figure out which law the New Black Panthers might have violated by standing outside a polling place with billy clubs.

These legal eagles are either giving the press a lot of disinformation about the WikiLeaks investigation or they are a couple Elmer Fudds who can't find their own butts without a map. Since Holder apparently wasn't watching Fox News a few weeks ago, I'll repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holder's legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the A's.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

As is evident, merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony. (...) If a fully certified, bona fide, grade-A "journalist," rushing to get a story, swerves his car onto a sidewalk and mows down 20 pedestrians, he's committed a crime. It doesn't matter that he was engaged in the vital First Amendment-protected activity of news-gathering. (...) >>>

Dec. 16, 2010
~

The TSA and Marxist criminology -

Read also "Pictures from Obama's America" -

American Thinker: "Airport Scanners and Marxist Criminology", by Chidike Okeem

The new TSA airport scanners have justifiably garnered a lot of attention and criticism. Frankly, the entire scheme is nothing more than a cheap contrivance to give the impression that Democrats care deeply about national security. Insofar as Democrats actually care about national security, it could not be more obvious that it is a mere afterthought to their main agenda of turning America into a tawdry imitation of socialist Europe. It is only an uninterested administration that views national security as a perfunctory and unserious task that, as a response to radical Islamic plane hijackers, would conceive of fondling every flyer -- including little Caucasian toddlers -- to look for bombs. (...)

In liberal criminology, innocents and genuine victims are viewed as irritants, whereas violent brutes are mollycoddled and heralded as courageous victims who committed their heroic actions as a cry for help against the oppressiveness of an iniquitous capitalistic structure. This is Marxist (or "conflict") criminology -- and it is embedded in the way liberals think. (...) Looking at this TSA injustice without factoring in Marxist criminology and the larger liberal worldview on crime would give the impression that the policy is merely misguided. That is not the case. It is a deliberate attempt to advance their "terrorists are just like us -- except oppressed" message. (...) >>>

Nov. 23, 2010
~

Lady Justice without a blindfold - postmodern, subjective justice, rather than sharia. It's not what you do, but rather who's doing it ... call it class justice -

Jihad Watch: "Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex"

Jul 27, 2010
~

Socialist aesthetics -

The American Spectator: "Justice Loses Its Stars and Stripes"

What's black and white and "red" all over? The Department of Justice's newly designed website. Gone are the standard red, white, and blue motifs, replaced by an all-black backdrop. And prominently placed on virtually every page of the site is a quote credited to a man who facilitated a greater role for socialists and communists at the U.N., and the global "workers rights movement." (...) the quote originates from British lawyer, C. Wilfred Jenks, who back in the late 1930s and after World War II was a leading figure in the "international law" movement, which sought to impose a global, common law, and advocated for global workers rights.

Jenks was a long-time member of the United Nation's International Labor Organization, and author of a number of globalist tracts, including a set of essays published back in 1958, entitled The Common Law of Mankind. Most telling: Jenks, as director of the ILO is credited with putting in place the first Soviet senior member of the UN organization, and also with creating an environment that allowed the ILO to give "observer status" to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (...) >>>

Jul 17, 2010
~

Redistributive justice -

Update TWT: "U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner: New Black Panthers harassed black GOP'er too"

Jul 7, 2010

Update FoxNews: "Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case" -

PJM: "From PJTV’s Instavision: Black Panther Justice for All?", by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Can we expect justice in the Obama administration, or just politics as usual? Whistleblower J. Christian Adams responds to the DOJ with exclusive documents answering whether he was a disgruntled employee or an outstanding civil servant. (Check PJM later today for more from Adams, after he testifies to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation dismissal.) (...) >>>

July 6, 2010
~

Elena's truth du jour -

The American Spectator: "The Banality of Elena", by George Neumayr

The chummy, Happy Jack Squirrel time atmosphere of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing is a little hard to take. Yes, she is "likable enough," to borrow Barack Obama's phrase about Hillary Clinton, but that won't make her any less destructive on the Supreme Court. If anything, it will make her more so. Though generally pleasant, she has seemed a bit cocky and dishonest at times during the hearing. Notice that she is quite the confident expert on conscientious judging for someone who has never done any. And somehow Thurgood Marshall's doting pupil has suddenly become an "originalist." (...) >>>

Jul 1, 2010
~

The Obama is now the law - As Comrade Waxman is ripping BP CEO Hayward like a errant boy "Experts Disavow Salazar's Drilling Moratorium" -

American Spectator: "Our Caudillo President", by Ben Stein

As I write this on Monday night, there are rumors around that BP will agree to President Barack Obama's demand that the oil giant "voluntarily" put about $30 billion into a fund to be administered by the government to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. Now, no one disputes that this is a real disaster and that BP acted irresponsibly in commissioning Trans-Ocean and Halliburton to drill for oil in waters so deep that if a failure occurred there would be no way to fix it -- at least until major damage had been done.

BP, Trans-Ocean, and Halliburton, as well as the individuals involved, have much to answer for. But the action of the President in demanding this immense transfer of the stockholders' wealth without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. (...) >>>

Jun 17, 2010
~

Engineering the past -

Once upon a time the past was taken for what it was. But to postmodernists history doesn't belong to the realm of the metaphysical, but of the man-made (they keep confusing the two). It can be engineered, so the war continues by means of 'universal jurisdiction'. It has the effect of leaving with inpunity the leftist dictatorships which are responsible for at least 100 million dead -

Breitbart: "Argentina tries probing crimes of Franco's Spain", by Almudena Calatrava (Associated Press Writer)

Argentine human rights groups are turning the tables on Spain, hoping to open a judicial probe of murders and disappearances committed during the Spanish Civil War and the long dictatorship of Gen. Francisco Franco.
Lawyers representing Argentine relatives of three Spaniards killed during the 1936-39 war will ask the federal courts here Wednesday to open an investigation, and hope to add many more cases in the months to come.

Such cross-border human rights probes have long been the specialty of Spain's crusading investigative judge Baltazar Garzon, whose case against Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet helped lead to the undoing of amnesties that had protected Latin America's dictators. But Garzon himself now faces the prospect of a career-ending judicial investigation for allegedly abusing his authority by opening an investigation into deaths and disappearances in Franco's Spain. So Garzon's supporters now hope to launch the same investigation, citing the same principles of international law—from Buenos Aires. (...) >>>

Apr 14, 2010
~

Meet the terror lawyers -

Image via Wikipedia

NRO: "‘Representing’ al-Qaeda", by Andrew C. McCarthy

Does helping jihadists lie, plot, and identify CIA agents demonstrate patriotism — or material support to terrorism? Bravely entering the lion’s den — delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, “pro bono” lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers — Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that “lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots.”

Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they “reaffirm our nation’s most essential and enduring values” — like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let’s not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who’s counting?

The attorney general’s encomium was prompted by critics who had embarrassed him, finally, into disclosing at least some of the names of former Gitmo Bar members he recruited for policymaking jobs at DOJ. They “do not deserve to have their own values questioned,” he said of these lawyers. Just like many attorneys at Covington & Burling, Holder’s former firm (which made representing enemy combatants its biggest “pro bono” project), they answered the call of “our values” because, you know, the detainees are so very “unpopular” among the American legal profession. (...) >>>

Mar 29, 2010
~

Was it incompetence?

In the preceding entry we saw the Obama performing a pivot, but present article asks, was the original momentous decision taken frivolously?

CSM: "Obama’s NYC terror trial switch: Pragmatism or indecisiveness?"

The Obama administration says it won’t hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda suspects in Manhattan after all, mainly because of security costs and community backlash. But to some, it's another political misstep. (...) >>>

Jan. 30, 2010
~

U turn if you want to:

CNN: "White House eyes moving site of 9/11 trial"

The White House is considering moving the site of the September 11 attack trial from Manhattan if the Justice Department sees fit, senior administration officials said Friday. "Conversations have occurred within the administration to discuss contingency options should the possibility of a trial in Lower Manhattan be foreclosed upon by Congress or locally," a senior administration official said. The turnabout comes after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other politicians expressed great concern over the costs and disruption of holding the September 11 trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accomplices at a Lower Manhattan courthouse. (...) >>>

Jan. 29, 2010
~

Oh dear, now the New York Police Commissioner was left in the dark. Also, this seems to be by no means certain.

Washington Times: "NYC's top cop Ray Kelly on decision to have terror trials in NY: We were not consulted" 

New York City's Police Commissioner Ray Kelly addressed the New York Young Republican Club on Thursday. Two hundred and fifty members of the organization were in attendance and mainly peppered the commissioner with questions regarding the upcoming 9/11 terror trials that are to be staged in lower Manhattan. When asked how the decision for the trials to be hosted in New York came about, Commisioner Kelly's response produced gasps among audience members (h/t Loud Citizen).:

“We were not consulted,” Kelly said tersely of the decision. He stated that the trial “will raise the threat level of this city,” a threat that “will not fade any time soon.” And it affects more than lower Manhattan, we learned. “We will have to look at the entire city as a potential target.” Commissioner Kelly also hinted that the terror trials could potentially be scrapped. (...) >>>

Jan. 24, 2010
~

On top of all other complications already charted, Germany's now throwing a spanner into the works on capital punishment. Is it too early to state this trial is kaput before it even started?

Spiegel: "The Death Penalty Problem - 9/11 Trial Puts German-US Relations Under Strain", by John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach

The prosecutors in the forthcoming 9/11 trials in New York will be seeking the death penalty if the five defendants are found guilty. That could pose a problem for Germany, which is supplying vital evidence for the prosecution. (...) But it looks like the upcoming trial will cause headaches for Germany.

- Caption: The People's Cube -

Holder and US President Barack Obama have announced that they intend to seek the death penalty if the five defendants are found guilty. German law prohibits capital punishment, yet evidence provided by German investigators will play a key role in the trial.

This presents the German government with a dilemma. Berlin can either oppose the use of German evidence in a bid to protect the defendants from execution -- and risk alienating a NATO ally in the process -- or it can approve the use of the incriminating documents, which would contravene Germany's position on the death penalty.

According to the current mutual legal assistance agreement between the two countries, should the information furnished by German investigators be used to impose the death penalty, Germany can insist that this evidence be considered inadmissible in court. This would not be the first time that the Germans have demanded such assurances for criminal proceedings. (...) >>>

Nov. 23, 2009
~

Politeia: "Obama, As Good As His Word (on GITMO)"

Bringing the 9/11 Soldiers of Allah to a civilian Court in New York - a thousand yards removed from where the towers once proudly stood - was one of the most cherished wishes of the anti America front, from tranzie centrists, to the dimwitted Left and the mentally debilitated anti war brigade. Now, in power, President Obama is as good as his pre election word - on this point at least. (...) There's really no advantage in having the trial of the 9/11 terrorists in New York, other than the Obama throwing his far Leftist base a bone. The prosecution of CIA operatives apparently has whetted their heavily politized appetites (the Left loves purges).

It's all the holier-than-thou attitude of transnational ideology at the expense of the safety of the American people (all bigoted, middle class Eichmanns, so who cares?). As if justice by military Tribunal is somehow inferior to justice brought by a civilian Court. (...) Terrorism has just become a win/win/win proposition for the Islamist hirabahists: if you succeed, all is well and you find your carnal reward in heaven; should you be preempted you earn yourself a prime propaganda and recruitment tool on a first class site at maximum media exposure.

Caroline Glick in an unrelated case recently explained the mistake of handling terrorism as a law enforcement issue. As it happens, Team Obama just nixed the Global War on Terror paradigm altogether, substituting it for an array of vacuous, postmodern epithets of the Hope-and-Change variety. (...) >>>

Nov. 15, 2009
~

Related dossiers

- "Legal Jihad"
- "Revisionism"

- "Ruled by the Mob"
- "The Obama Civil Defense Force"
- "Obama's Radical Connections"
- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "The Pomo White House" (the Obama Presidential campaign)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bin Laden warns: Don't kill alleged 9/11 chief (msnbc.msn.com)
• Here we go: World meddling in 9/11 show trials begins (michellemalkin.com)
• Attention, NYC: White House still stuck on stupid (michellemalkin.com)