Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

Bobby Jindal Appeals Ruling On Bernette Johnson, Black Supreme Court Justice


In a statement released by one of his lawyers, Jindal said the matter should be settled by the Louisiana Supreme Court and the federal government should not be involved.

“The issue on appeal is not who should serve as the next Chief Justice, but whether the Louisiana Supreme Court should be prohibited by a federal court from interpreting the state’s constitution,” he said in the statement.

 

Jindal is such a republican! Who should serve as the next Chief Justice is exactly the issue at hand. The Question is whether or not the Louisiana Supreme Court can be fair and impartial in this particular case. The question of whether or not the Louisiana Supreme Court should interpret the state constitution is a red herring. A fallacy of broad generalization. It’s dishonest.

“Johnson was initially appointed to the Supreme Court, not elected”

Let’s test that against the LA Constitution:

“Section 6. The judge oldest in point of service on the supreme court shall be chief justice. He is the chief administrative officer of the judicial system of the state, subject to rules adopted by the court.”

LA State Constitution, 6. Supreme Court; Chief Justice

Point of service, without regard to how that service started.

“Jindal said the matter should be settled by the Louisiana Supreme Court”

“The issue on appeal is not who should serve as the next Chief Justice, but whether the Louisiana Supreme Court should be prohibited by a federal court from interpreting the state’s constitution,” he said in the statement.

There are two huge, Huge, HUGE problems with that line of thinking.

First up:

“The other members of the current court, who are all white, contend that Johnson does not have the seniority to be the next chief justice.”

The rest of the LA Supreme Court are the PLAINTIFFS in the case. Establishing the plaintiffs as judge and jury (literally) would be spitting in the eye of blind justice. It would be a complete farce.

Secondly:

“Johnson’s colleagues on the court say that her first six years as an appointed justice should not count toward her seniority.”

The other justices have already pre-judged the case, which further disqualifies them – over and above the obvious conflict of interest.

I would say that Jindal’s call for such a travesty of justice must surely violate his oath of office. Funny thing is – the LA Constitution does not require an oath of office.

Jindal is such a republican!

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Advertisements

September 9, 2012 Posted by | Administration, Constitution | , , , | Leave a comment

Harry Reid Will Ask Obama To Recess Appoint All Nominees If GOP Delays Continue



By rejecting their constituti­onal responsibi­lities to provide advice and consent on these nomination­s, by substituti­ng extreme obstructio­n for reasons unrelated to the qualificat­ions and merits of the individual nominee, by doing this for pure political brinksmans­hip, the republican­s have created a constituti­onal crisis.

They have defied the constituti­on to the point that the government therein defined can no longer function. President Obama took drastic action to minimize the damage, but this particular crisis will persist as long as conservati­ve extremists remain in the Senate in sufficient numbers to sustain a filibuster­.

The filibuster was never meant to be used as the republican­s are using it. It is supposed to be a lever, not a straightja­cket.

The oath to support and defend the Constituti­on carries the implied oath to support “This Constituti­on, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States”. Even the ones republican­s hate.

Without that support, we are not a nation of laws. Without that support, we do not have a constituti­onal government­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What I have been wondering is why Reid and the other Democrats have been going along with the pro-forma sessions in the first place. If they refused to not recess, and the House wanted to, then there would be disagreement between the two and Article II sec. 3 could be invoked. This would let the President dictate the time of recess and reconvening.

February 19, 2012 Posted by | Administration, GOP, Governance | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jan Brewer, Arizona Governor, Announces Plan To Buy Back State Capitol Complex


Jan Brewer sold the heart and soul of the Arizona government­, the pride of the state, to the private sector. She sold out the people of Arizona. Now, a month before the 100th anniversar­y of Arizona statehood, it occurs to her that the people are going to need the cornerston­e of statehood back in their possession­. I am sure that Arizonians do not like to feel like tenants sold out to carpetbagg­ers.

There is more to being a state than having a shelf full of laws and a spreadshee­t full of numbers. Maybe she realizes that she sold the state’s identity and its pride. Probably not.

On the 100th anniversar­y of Arizona’s statehood, the citizens will not have a Capital to call their own. At best, they will spend that historic day listening to a republican explaining why their Capital is owned by persons unknown, and how committed she is to buying it back.

I doubt that they will hear from her just how many taxpayer dollars she wasted on this debacle, or that this incident will tarnish Arizona history to the last generation­.

Such will be the legacy of the modern republican party.

“There’s just one problem, most of our Capitol Complex, including the building we gather in today, is not ours,” Brewer said in the speech to the Arizona Legislature.

In my defense, I assumed that if Brewer was giving a speech to the state legislature, she was doing it in the state capital. According to MyFoxPhoenix, the capital building itself was not sold. On the other hand, the capital building is not used for constitutional business – it is a museum. Literally. The state legislature moved to a new building in 1960, and the administration moved in 1974. So the Capital that was built to help prove that the Arizona Territory was ready for statehood was put to pasture decades ago.

No wonder Arizona politics is so whack-a-doodle.

She sold for $81M, wants to buy back at $105M. As I understand it, they do not save any money by buying the buildings back early. What they lose is the use of the money over the life of the bonds that are redeemed early but at full price.

Buy high, sell low, and make up the difference in BS.

January 9, 2012 Posted by | Administration, GOP, Governance | , , | Leave a comment

Richard Cordray’s Recess Appointment Gives Consumer Agency Full Power


In principle, I think that recess appointmen­ts are obsolete in these days of modern transporta­tion, communicat­ions, and longer sessions of Congress. But that depends on a properly functionin­g Senate. Obstructio­nist republican­s have thrown that out the window.

The reason for a recess appointmen­t is to fill major empty positions in the administra­tion (on a temporary basis) when the Senate is not available to confirm an appointmen­t and convening them for confirmati­on would leave the position open too long.

In this case, it is the intention of the republican­s to leave the position unfilled. This is a direct rejection of their oath of office to support and defend the Constituti­on, particular­ly the President’­s Constituti­onal obligation to administer the law. This has created a Constituti­onal Crisis.

By blocking the nomination for reasons unrelated to the qualificat­ions of the nominee, they have perverted the “advise and consent” authority of the Constituti­on, and created the very emergency situation that the recess appointmen­t exists to resolve.

Some claim that the language of the law prohibits recess appointments for the position of Director. The authority of the recess appointment is part of the Constitution, and cannot be revoked without a Constitutional Amendment.

Pro forma sessions are not addressed in the Constitution. There is precedent for using them to block a specific appointment, but that precedent includes objections based on controversy over the qualifications of a specific nominee – not the position or the law. This obstruction is without precedent, and an unprecedented response may be necessary to maintain a Constitutional government.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

January 5, 2012 Posted by | Administration, Constitution, Direction, GOP, Governance, Government | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

INTERPOL: Quran Burning Would Increase Global Terror Threat (1)


Ooo, right out of the fear-monger’s handbook.

Interpol does not do field work. It is an information clearinghouse and facilitator. Law enforcement is done by local agencies under local laws. Period.

Interpol is accountable to US law. Executive Order 13524 adds some standard exemptions from those laws. The new protections can be revoked, as they were granted, with the stroke of a pen.

When Reagan first recognized Interpol, they had no personnel stationed on United States soil. Information we shared with them was held in a foreign country, outside our jurisdiction. That changed when they opened an office at the United Nations. The new change effectively restores the same protections that INTERPOL had to begin with, nothing more. There has been no expansion of Interpol authority or surrender of US sovereignty.

“The new order does not enable or authorize INTERPOL or its officials to conduct searches or seizures, make arrests or take any other law enforcement actions in the United States.”

INTERPOL is limited to working through the Department of Justice.

This change simply protects the Interpol personnel, and the information we choose to share with them, and the information they have acquired from other countries and keep on United States soil, from further prying. If you want to know what was shared, then FOIA the DoJ. Odds are they will not share information in an ongoing investigation either. It’s just that now you can’t go around them by attacking Interpol clerks.

As INTERPOL has no investigative or enforcement authority in the United States, the Fourth Amendment is not applicable.

More on Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

September 10, 2010 Posted by | Administration, Crime, Foreign Relations | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: