JUDGE EDITH H. JONES Tells Harvard Law School: "American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition"

MassNews.com® Copyright 2004 ©All Rights Reserved ^ | March 7, 2003 | Geraldine Hawkins

[traviskicks]

Well, how 'bout a 50% tax cut then?

[listenhillary]

Read later bump

[elbucko]

The constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union,...all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support.

Hmmm. This causes one to wonder about the outcome of a legal action regarding the instance of a functionary (law enforcement) refusing to honor the 4th. Amendments compulsory, "oath or affirmation" , with regard to acquiring a search warrant. Could the LEO claim religious issues if he is an atheist? A Muslim? Is the 4th. Amendment in violation of the 1st. Amendment by requiring an "oath or affirmation? Should law enforcement be compelled by the Constitution to have moral scruples?

All we would need is one detective to refuse to swear, or affirm, upon his conscience that the probable cause was true by which he is asking a magistrate to issue a search warrant and would be a violation of his 1st. Amendment rights.

Go to it, ACLU!

[Chances Are]

I've been following this exchange with rapt interest.

You've touched upon the usual suspects taught in public schools about the Great Depression, it's causes, and it's effect on the people at the time, and offered the usual bromides.

For your entertainment, consider this:

In 1913 the 16th amendment was ratified. 16 years later, the US, in effect, declared bankruptcy. Since you cite the credit collapse as the main engine for the demise of the economy at the time, would you consider this a mere coincidence?

Smoot-Hawley aside (it's real effects can be debated until the cows come home, without resolution), the perceptive moneymen of the time, chief among them J.P. Morgan, saw what was coming, and headed for the nearest exit. Since you have implied that these Robber Barons were a cancer upon the economy at this time, perhaps you can tell us why you think these storied moneymen are the Bad Guys in this story?

The business cycle has been with us since time immemorial, and due to the dynamic nature of a capitalist system, excesses occur that sometimes cannot be displaced in a timely fashion. Other times, there are forces at work, which most people cannot see, that will do things and make decisions that are really inimicable to the smooth functioning of the economy.

The FDR presidency was an enormous shock to both the nation and it's economy. Hoover gets the rap as the do-nothing president, and compared to what FDR did, that's true. But the simple fact of the matter is, Hoover, after the stock market crash, became the most activist president the country had ever had, up to that time.

I've always found Friedman interesting (I was taught by a protege of his while in school), but I've got to differ about throwing money around when the economy goes south. The rules of economics don't change or become suspended just because we hit bad times. You have to grow out of them, by making the milieu businesses operate in a little better for them, and coincidentally, for everyone (except politicians, and maybe lawyers).

Economies are about markets, and the people that partake of them. Markets deal in value. Governments do not manufacture or make anything of value for the marketplace. They redistribute according to their own whims. Redistribution is not a function of marketplace growth. I'll grant you there is some short-term benefit to be had, but following it to it's logical conclusion it will only lead to distortions in the marketplace, felt by raising prices, shortages, and the inevitable corruption that follows such exercises.

In closing this long-winded tome, let me just say that FDR had nothing to do with recovering from the Great Depresion. Him and his socialist henchmen were economic idiots. No, it took Hitler and Hirohito to pull us out of that morass.

And in spite of FDR's Herculean efforts to reshape America more to his liking (G. Rexford Tugwell admitted in later years that their aim was, indeed, to rewrite the Constitution), he did not save capitalism and democracy from itself.

CA....

[connectthedots]

I'm off to the Washington State Supreme Court with my petition to recall Christine Gregoire. During the sufficiency hearing, the judge ruled that the members of the Washington State Supreme Court have the inherent power to intentionally violate the Washington Constitution, to obstruct justice, violate Title 18 US Code 241 and 242; and that based on the separation of powers doctrine, has no authority to order the investigation and prosecution of state supreme court justices who commit mail fraud, obstruct justice and otherwise violate Title 18 US Code section 1962(c) and (d) (RICO).

That was his exact ruling, though he did not use those exact words.

I'm serious.

[Sybeck1]

ping this, as today she's the front runner

[dnmore]

ping for later

[Puddleglum]

ping to read later - wonderful stuff! Nominate this woman to the Supreme Court, Mr. Bush!

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[IamConservative]

Premptive strike against a possible nominee?

[LucyJo]

Thank you for the excellent post. You are so right..."we are ready and waiting for Edith"...and we've needed her for way too long.

[Free Baptist]

"You're right. Judge Jones' opinion in Burdine will doom her, as well it should. I read that case, and it was WAY worse than it sounds.

"The 5th Circuit sitting en banc reversed her, but the damage was done. She'll never be confirmed or I suspect even nominated."

IT SHOULD BE ATTEMPTED ANYWAY!

[HiTech RedNeck]

aint no way the senate, with or without filibuster, is going to let her in to replace anyone to the left of Scalia.

[Liz]

Hope Hon Jones is on Bush's A list.