The judge makes some good points about the corruption of "tort" law and laying a lot of blame on trial lawyers, but she conveniently ignores the corruption of federal judges concerning "constitutional" law.
For examples,
--does she support the 2nd amendment as an individual right? --does she believe that search and seizures by "federalized" security personnel at airports violates the 4th amendment? --does she believe that unfunded federal regulations imposed on business violates the 5th amendment? --does she believe that Art I Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause" does not have jurisdiction within state boundaries? --does she believe in the sanctity of Art I, Section 8, Clause 17, jurisdiction of federal legislation within the boundaries of a state? --does she believe in plethora of individual rights protected by the 9th amendment?
I would say she probably does not.
She probably believes in the dictum of "compelling state interest" which is the dictum that has inverted our constitutional republic from a republic of limited government from the consent of the governed, to virtually unlimited government without the consent of the governed.
Other than a few "free speech" constitutional challenges from time to time, will we ever see a federal judge rule from the point of few of a "presumption of liberty" versus "the balancing between private rights and public needs?" No.
That my friends is the true corruption of our legal system.
The judge makes some good points about the corruption of "tort" law and laying a lot of blame on trial lawyers, but she conveniently ignores the corruption of federal judges concerning "constitutional" law.
For examples,
--does she support the 2nd amendment as an individual right? --does she believe that search and seizures by "federalized" security personnel at airports violates the 4th amendment? --does she believe that unfunded federal regulations imposed on business violates the 5th amendment? --does she believe that Art I Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause" does not have jurisdiction within state boundaries? --does she believe in the sanctity of Art I, Section 8, Clause 17, jurisdiction of federal legislation within the boundaries of a state? --does she believe in plethora of individual rights protected by the 9th amendment?
I would say she probably does not.
She probably believes in the dictum of "compelling state interest" which is the dictum that has inverted our constitutional republic from a republic of limited government from the consent of the governed, to virtually unlimited government without the consent of the governed.
Other than a few "free speech" constitutional challenges from time to time, will we ever see a federal judge rule from the point of few of a "presumption of liberty" versus "the balancing between private rights and public needs?" No.
That my friends is the true corruption of our legal system.
14 -tahiti-
__________________________________
Well said, & bears repeating.