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

[little jeremiah]

Later pingout and I want her on the SCOTUS!

[loveliberty2]

"The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in courts of justice?'"

Today, "oaths" are considered by many of the Liberal Left to be merely symbolic words, having little meaning except as "promises."

George Washington, in the quotation cited above, recognizes the Founders' view that oaths were much more than mere mortal promises. They were intended, in the "courts of justice," to signify what the Founders believed to be "obligations" before a Higher Authority, thus, trustworthy pledges.

Let John Quincy Adams explain it, as he did in New York City on the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington in his "Jubilee of the Constitution of the United States." Here are his words:

"To complete the organization of the government by the institution of the chief executive departments and the establishment of judicial courts, was among the first duties of Congress. The constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union, not only of the general but of all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law, to give it strength; and this confirmation of an appeal to the responsibilities of a future omnipotent judge, was in exact conformity with the whole tenor of the Declaration of Independence. . . ."

In this hours-long Discourse, delivered at the request of the New York Historical Society, Adams recites the noble 50-year history of America under its Constitution, as well as the history of its philosophical underpinnings in the Declaration of Independence.

The question is: who understands better the philosophy, principles, and protections of the United States Constitution better, John Quincy Adams, or the ACLU and the Liberals of today?

Adams, the eldest son of John Adams, born in 1767, served as Minister to the Netherlands under President Washington, as minister to Prussia and to Russia, as Secretary of State, and as U. S. Senator. He was the Sixth President of the United States and from 1830 until his death in his seat in the Congress, he was a U. S. Congressman.

[Texas_Jarhead]

I like the cut of her jib.

[Aquinasfan]

You'll no doubt enjoy this.

I did. Thanks. I had a friend who went to Harvard Law. They did a job on his head with "Critical Legal Theory." A sample:

If legal theory is to be progressive it must be critical and must address the role of law as a primary facilitator of exploitation and discrimination. ...

He's now a corporate lawyer, ironically and predictably enough.

[SittinYonder]

SCOTUS anyone?

[Iwo Jima]

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's too bad. I had followed Judge Jones for years and thought that she would be excellent for the Supreme Court, but Burdine and similar cases tell me that she believes that anything the government does in criminal case is OK, even perjury, false evidence, framing an innocent person. She just doesn't get the "innocent until proven guilty" or "due process" thing. That's disqualifies her from being a Supreme Court justice in my opinion.

I'd vote against her if I were a senator. And that's too bad. She could have been great, but her rabid pro-prosecution stance which even the 5th Circuit couldn't abide is unacceptable.

[smiley]

....imagine, if you will, these activist judges being...(gulp).....radical Muslims....

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Very good read. I vote for her on the SCOTUS, not that my vote means anything. SHe unabashedly speaks the truth about the very foundation of law, morality and their connection. The statement "you can't legislate morality" is trounced soundly.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[Unknown Freeper]

for later discussion

[AndyJackson]

it's the defendant's fault if they hired a incompetent lawyer.

Not knowing anything about the case, there are a couple of points. First, this may have been an appointed public defender. Second, the error may not have mattered. The Court will have reviewed the testimony and the appellant will have to have argued that something in the transcript was improper and that an error at trial occurred because of it which would not have occurred if the lawyer had not been asleep at the swich. Third, those who see this as an outrargeous possibility miss the fact that a lot of judges allow a lot of irrelevant testimony to drag on and on and the only defense is to sleep through it.

[AndyJackson]

The Harvard chapter [of the Federalist Society], with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.

Good God where is Larry Sommers. This outfit needs to be banned and these students expelled for inciting to riot.

[AndyJackson]

Not quite as good as Janice Rogers Brown's:

Thank you for the link, and having read it I would disagree. I think Jones will prove the much more able jurist because I think she is much more grounded in the real world.

In fact, I find Brown a bit disturbing. Someone who tries to analyze our current predicaments by drawing a straight line from Procul Harem through the New Deal will end up falling off the tracks.

Perhaps the resulting ascendencey of liberilism and 50 year dominance of Democrats is the result of the New Deal, but the bury your head in the sand attitude of the Republicans in response to the credit collapse and the depression is more the cause of that then any measures to restore economic activity to a moribund economy.

One can just as well blame it all on credit cycles. Now a good conservative would argue that over-expansion of credit is a very very bad thing, but that is not the fault of having a public sector and big government. In fact, one of the reasons for the creation of central banks is that private banks were just as capable of expanding credit and creating subsequent collapses as is the public sector. The most recent financial system shocks have been the result of the expansion of credit through derivatives, which is almost entirely a private phenomenon.

I am, in fact, very concerned about conservatives who believe that large unaccountable private institutions are somehow less of a threat to individual liberties than are public institutions, this after Enron.

[traviskicks]

Well, you're correct that the Great Depression is significant in a number of important ways. I also think our public schools and society has created a number of myths about the great depression.

http://www.neoperspectives.com/greatdepression.htm

But as many modern economists are now suggesting, and contrary to popular belief, Roosevelt's higher government spending on his many new programs combined with higher taxes and shrinking of state power actually prolonged and deepened the Great Depression. A good illustration of FDR's role in this can be found in Jim Powell's book, "FDR's Folly" (1). Today we are stuck with many growth retarding programs like Medicaid, Social Security, and countless others that have far outlived their useful (hurtful) purpose. These programs have and continue to drain trillions from our GDP and have fostered corruption by the powers given to the many created regulatory agencies.

But, in their eagerness to blame Roosevelt, Conservatives today often forget that Republican President Herbert Hoover is credited with triggering the Great Depression by drastically reducing the money supply, ostensibly in order to prevent it. He also responded disastrously by passing the Revenue Act of 1932 which increased the top income tax rate from 25% to 63% with the aim being to restore business confidence by reducing the deficit. The results of this tax increase was an even greater deficit, plummeting tax revenues and a greater Depression (5). If President Hoover had more gradually and reasonably tightened the money supply and cut taxes when the depression first hit, the outcome might have been far different.

---

So, I love that JRB attacks Roosevelt for what he is, the worst president ever in the history of the United Sates. But you're point about private and public similarities in overrextending credit etc.. is well taken and valid. But, if they are both the same, then why not just keep it private?

"I am, in fact, very concerned about conservatives who believe that large unaccountable private institutions are somehow less of a threat to individual liberties than are public institutions, this after Enron."

I think this is a criminal case, executives stealing from employees (by nulifiying their promised pensions/health benefits etc..) and should be prosecuted as such.

I often hear this argument, that private companies can become just as tyrannical as government. I believe this to be false. Private companies cannot make law. Private companies cannot throw you in jail if you do not comply with their laws. Government does this all the time, in order to, in effect, legally steal from us, or enabling private companies to do so. (some examples):
http://www.neoperspectives.com/rhetoric.htm

So, I believe Government will always be a greater threat than any private institution.

Janice Rogers Brown believes this, which is why I support her for the SCOTUS. Some more quotes by JRB:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm

[AndyJackson]

As you say in your quote on the new deal" Today we are stuck with many growth retarding programs like Medicaid, Social Security, and countless others that have far outlived their useful (hurtful) purpose.

That New Deal Programs and the liberals that begate them have long outlive their usefulness is a long valid criticism. The criticism that the new deal sustained the depression is a bit hard to defend. Everytime programs were cut back or not renewed unemployment went up and economic growth slowed again - which is why Roosevelt was able to continue to expand these programs despite prolonged criticism from the Republicans, from the Supreme Court and from members of his own party, including his own treasury secretary. Now you might make the argument that you cannot measure the situation by looking at small fluctuations and that the only possible program for success was for the government to stay out of it altogether.

The Republicans had plenty of time and opportunity to attempt to demonstrate that thesis and failed. Now maybe you could argue that they should have been given 20 years. That is a generation though and no one has the tolerance to stand high unemployment for a generation to prove a point. It is political suicide. It was for the Repubicans at the time.

Roosevelt won 4 terms and he is dead. Stop fighting that battle. The vital issue for the Republicans should be a positive program to do the best for the citizenry of the US now given the world situation as it is today.

[AndyJackson]

Also from your citation, first I would note that the finding of "many modern economists" is not exactly a convinving statement, many and economists both being vague referents. Similarly the cite states Since the 1900s, excluding the Great Depression, 16 contractions in the economy have lasted an average of only 11 months

Well, the great depression was something different because it had already lasted may years before Roosevelt took office. It had already proven itself impervious to the normal efforts to expand credit which assumes that there is someone wanting to expand his business and will do so upon the supply of credit on acceptable terms. When no one is credit worthy and no one can put together a sound business plan for expansion because he has no potential customers, then you have a structural problem which requires a different kind of solution than the one the interest rate technocrats can provide.

[AndyJackson]

So, I believe Government will always be a greater threat than any private institution.

Well, I don't. They both bear watching.

[traviskicks]

So, I believe Government will always be a greater threat than any private institution.
Well, I don't. They both bear watching.
---

I think you will find history supports me. Recall the British East India company, a private company that actually governed, created the laws for parts of india and did quite well. This isn't a good example because the private company WAS the government.

But what is the worst thing a private company ever did? Now, what is the worst thing government ever did? See the difference? In fact, private companies only become dangerous when they use and manipulate government. The less power government has the less 'influence' 'wealth' and 'power' it will have to market to private companies and 'do things' in their interest.

[traviskicks]

Agree with your criticism about 'many modern economists'.

But what the New Deal did was it stole, via taxes, money from productive businesses and gave it to the unemployed to create useless earthworks and money loosers like the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). This is bad economics. Creating entitlement programs, taking money from productive businesses that would be hiring and giving it to people for no reason is bad economics.

It had lasted 2-3 years before Roosevelt took office and you had Hoover raising taxes from 25-65% (or whatever it was)... which further deepened it. This is not often cited, which was why I think it is important.

To raise the top rate to 65% during peacetime? Especially right after the market crashed? This, more than anything, probably exacerbated the GD.

Roosevelt also launched massive farm subsidies during this period, yet people were starving. Stealing money from teh rich to raise teh price of grain for everyone.

I understand what your saying about the credit problem, but don't see how raising taxes and redistributing wealth and creating entitlement programs helps this.

[traviskicks]

Everytime programs were cut back or not renewed unemployment went up and economic growth slowed again - which is why Roosevelt was able to continue to expand these programs despite prolonged criticism from the Republicans, from the Supreme Court and from members of his own party, including his own treasury secretary.
---

I'm not sure this argument can be backed up. It is difficult to determine what is causing what. Lagging/leading indicators etc...

I don't think these programs should ever have been started and think they prolonged teh Great Depression.

But I agree, it is better to focus on the future than on the past. I would like to read more on the great depression. FDR's folly, was very illustrative, but other POV are welcome.

And as far as the Republicans at the time of the GD... I think they blew it when they raised taxes and reacted 'liberally', so to speak, to the GD.