Posted on 02/12/2002 5:30:56 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
While Senate Democrats are blocking President Bush's judicial appointments, guess who's minding the judicial store and guess what are they up to? Liberal activist Clinton judges, that's who, and they are up to no good.
Out on the left coast, for example, more than 70% of the full-time judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are Democrat appointees. Two of President Clinton's 14 appointees to that court are among his most radical ever and they are busy dismantling what the people of California have spent years building.
In 1994, nearly 72% of California voters decided no longer to treat perpetual criminals as if they were first-time offenders. Instead, each additional felony would be treated more seriously. They enacted the "Three Strikes" law requiring that a third serious or violent felony would bring at least 25 years behind bars.
Last November, Judge Richard Paez ruled that using this law to do exactly as Californians intended violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. He insisted that the sentence was "grossly disproportionate" to the crime, a standard urged by only three Supreme Court Justices concurring in a 1991 case. But hey, it was all an activist needed to get where he wanted to go.
Well, now fellow Clinton appointee Judge Marsha Berzon has done the same thing in two cases. Earnest Bray had in the 1980s been convicted of four counts of robbery. In one incident, a co-defendant threatened to kill the woman they were robbing, and actually fired three shots. In another robbery, his co-defendants punched and kicked their victim.
Had he not chosen this criminal path, prosecutors could have charged him with petty theft when Bray stole several videotapes in March 1994. Instead, they charged him with felony petty theft "with a prior." Conviction of this felony became his third strike when added to his earlier robbery convictions. He received the mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison.
Richard Brown had in the 1970s and 80s been convicted of at least five serious or violent felonies including second degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery. He also had a string of other convictions for felony vehicle theft, burglary, battery, second-degree robbery, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Brown's life of crime had similar consequences for him. When caught for shoplifting in 1995, prosecutors charged him with petty theft with a prior. With three felony strikes, he too received the mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison.
Joined by liberal activist extraordinaire Judge Stephen Reinhardt and fellow Clinton appointee Judge A. Wallace Tashima, Judge Berzon did the same thing her colleague Judge Paez had done last fall. Going to prison for 25 years for petty theft or shoplifting would, by itself, strike most people as a little much - or, in legalese, "grossly disproportionate. Since neither of these career criminals had received that sentence for that crime, however, she had her work cut out for her.
Judge Berzon repeatedly said that petty theft itself, what she called the "core conduct" of the crime for which Bray was convicted, "is ordinarily punished by no more than six months in jail." Indeed it is, but Bray had chosen to commit other crimes. He chose the serious of crimes that resulted in his conviction for petty theft "with a prior." That "with a prior" part is what takes him outside the ordinary realm of first-time offenders receiving slaps on the wrist.
Only by re-framing the facts in this case, by acting as if this were a first-timer rather than a habitual felon, could Judge Berzon get where she wanted to go. She's a true activist judge, making things up and moving things around to achieve the result she wants to reach. Like the case last year before Judge Paez, these were brought by law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a dedicated leftist crusader willing to use the courts to thwart the democratic choices of his fellow citizens. Activist lawyers and activist judges are a potent combination, and here they are dismantling democracy itself and putting the safety of law-abiding citizens at risk.
This is the judicial legacy of Bill Clinton. With more than 100 judicial vacancies and more than 50 Bush nominees languishing in the Democratic Senate, these Clinton activists are striking at will. They are continuing the revolution, substituting their values and political agenda for those of the people.
Tom Jipping is the director of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Law and Democracy.
Free Congress Foundation
Democrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002;
Susan JonesThe Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002;
Author:Byron YorkSYMPOSIUM Q: Should the Senate Take Ideology into Account in Judicial Confirmations
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 4, 2002;
Authors:
Ralph G. Neas -- YES: The ideology of nominees for the federal judiciary matters more now than ever
Roger Pilon -- NO: Since judges apply law, not make it, the Senate's concern should be with judicial temperamentWhat is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002;
Author: Thomas L. JippingBlasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002;
Matt PyeattJudicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001
Author: Thomas L. JippingSenator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001
Author: By John NowackiSenator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001
Author: Rev. Louis P. SheldonA Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published December 3, 2001Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001
Author:EditorialSen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001
Author: Paul E. ScatesJudicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001
Author: Audrey HudsonPatrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001
Author: William A. MayerJudicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. JippingPartisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001
Author: John NowackiLeahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Author: John NowackiObedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001
Author: Thomas L. JippingWhy is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published:October 26, 2001
Author: Mary MostertPat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001
Author: John NowackiOperation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001
Author: T.L.JippingDaschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001
Author: Dave BoyerLeahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001
Author: Tom Jipping
First of all (this observation has become a cliché) they choose to not label anything on the left as extreme left, thereby deliberately shifting the balance so that all arguments against are rightwing and never moderate, and all outright contradictions are thereby extreme right. For the latest blatant example see this and my commentary at Riordan criticized for his moderate views"
Being so consistently irrational in this manner is a sure sign of the arrogant or the tyrannical being at the helm: "Who's gonna stop us? You? How? HA HA HAAA."
The first ammendment gives the press a no-holds-barred shield against any governmental encroachment. However, that first ammendment swings both ways, or at least it is supposed to. While it enables their arrogance, it also lets us label their behavior and alleged unbiasness as illegitimate as we see it.
But FR and Jim Robinson is under attack for commenting upon the same scene as do those same arrogant b@st@rds. This problem that Jim Robinson has been having is being brought before judges who could very well be part of this arrogance front thanks to Clinton, the ACLU and fellow travelers, RINOs, and the aforedemonstrated blindness of the media for any conflicts of interest involving the Left.
Here's just one example that would have been hooted off the stage long ago if it involved say Clarence Thomas and the Pacific Legal Foundation. Put the names Ripston and Reinhardt into a Google search and you come up with this openly flaunted conflict that nobody in media attacks, not even talk radio. Everybody in the country knows how ludicrously left is the ninth circuit court of appeals. In this conflict of interest we are gifted with just one way to rid that court of it's most strident Red.
It's this obviously deliberate cultural activism on the part of media that is never questioned. That "Bias" is the current best seller, and the media hacks still deny it tells you how right FR is and how utterly devoid the media is deserving of any respect. But still it is the Establishment's voice, and they think they have a right to their opinion even if it's at our expense.
And so the LA Times and the Washington Post, to start, are aiming to silence our best voice to date. I'm wholeheartedly with Jim Robinson and FR, and I pray more of you will join with me in his defense.
So, please. It is time to join together. We need to strategize before our forum is yanked out from under us. Provide strategies we can send to Jim. Don't just sit there. Think and write.
As always, watch out for disrupters, because we do have many long time resident ones here that have not been outed, and new ones waiting in the wings. Probably many are in the employ of our nemeses, but some morons just like to get in the way. But such is the nature of liberty -- some just don't really understand or appreciate how unique our position in history really is.
So please don't just complain and delineate all these excesses here. Get angry to a purpose.
Is that a date?
Regards
J.R.
Even as it is, the thread went nowhere despite its being a significant issue made even more intolerable by the RINOs and other cowards in the senate.
Yup...ignorance is bliss. To bad the ignorant are dragging the rest down with them.
Regards
J.R.
Republican Senators, you have the floor now. Let's roll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.