Category Archives: ethics

Judicial Inconvenience

Posted on by
Reply

A prison inmate went without his heart medication for a week, had a heart attack, and died. The 6th Circuit ruled no Qualified Immunity for the nurse who didn’t, per the Institute for Justice‘s 27 June newsletter, call his pharmacy to verify his prescriptions or take 10 minutes to get the necessary release form filled out for getting his prescription filled out.

The dissenting judge in the panel beefed (IJ paraphrase),

Now everyone in CA6 who dies in jail because they were briefly without their medication has a constitutional claim.

Sorry, Judge, the convenience of you or your court is no excuse for denying even a prisoner his due, and it’s no excuse for not holding materially accountable those prison officials who deny a prisoner his due.

The Circuit opinion and dissent can be read here.

Artificial Hysteria

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court earlier this week stayed a district court’s order blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal aliens to countries that are not the home countries of those illegal aliens. The activist Justices on the Court demurred. The Court’s stay does not address the underlying case; it merely allows the administration to proceed while that case makes its way through our court system. It’s the nature of their demurral that’s instructive here, though.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the dissenters,

Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled[.]

This over-the-top manufactured hysteria by the activist Justices does the Court no good at all. In an environment where many begin to question the legitimacy of the Court, Sotomayor’s excessive hype is the sort of thing fueling that question.

Judge Shopping

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal editorial correctly decried this, and a letter writer to the news outlet’s Letters section correctly included the Northern District of Texas as a particular judge shopping target for bringing suits convenient to the Trump administration. The letter writer also pointed out that, as an attempt to mitigate, if not eliminate judge shopping, the Judicial Conference of the United States, strongly discourag[ed] the practice, and some Federal districts changed their rules to enhance random assignments of their judges—but those rules are District by District.

Lost in this kerfuffle (cynically so, say I given that judges as a group surely know better) is a nation-wide requirement of centuries-long standing [emphasis added]:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed….

And

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved….

For those of you following along at home, those are from our Constitution’s 6th and 7th Amendments, respectively.

For the quibblers of the lawyer class, the latter is easily extensible by statute to explicitly require the civil suit to occur in the State and district wherein the [cause of the tort] shall have [first occurred].

The ability of Congress to make such a thing explicit is in this nation-wide requirement of equally centuries-long standing:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The District courts, as creatures of Congress, have their jurisdictional authorities set by Congress. This Congressional power over jurisdictional authority extends to the Supreme Court [emphasis added]:

…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Again, for those of you following along at home, those are from our Constitution’s Art III, Sect 1, and Art III, Sect 2, respectively.

All that’s required to eliminate judge-shopping is a renewed respect for and enforcement of our Constitution.

Disingenuosity Example

Posted on by
Reply

And one that’s typical of the Leftist objections to the Trump administration’s temerity in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. The example is a sign that’s ubiquitous at Leftist protests and at Leftist overt interferences with ICE arrests.

It’s certainly true that no human being is illegal. The disingenuosity of the Leftist “protestors” is centered there, as they ignore the underlying principle: what human beings do often is illegal. In the context of immigration, what human beings do that’s illegal is breaking into or sneaking into our nation in violation of our immigration laws. Their illegal behavior is compounded by the next crime they commit: hiding in some way, whether directly or through anonymity, and remaining in our nation illegally.

These intrinsically non-illegal human beings need to be apprehended and held accountable for their intrinsically illegal behaviors: jailed for their immigration crimes, or more simply deported.

But of course, Leftists and the politicians of their Progressive-Democratic Party insist that the actions of illegal aliens, perpetrated by intrinsically non-illegal human beings, also are intrinsically non-illegal.

All Too Typical

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for New York City mayor and currently sitting City Comptroller says it’s remarkable that he was arrested by ICE agents, two of whom were themselves immigrants, for his obstruction of their arrest of an illegal alien and that he’s sad and angry over the arrest.

This is all too typical of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians: they profess to see no difference between immigrants, such as those two ICE agents, and the illegal alien whom those agents were arresting.

It’s also all too typical of Progressive-Democratic politicians that they think laws, especially laws about obstructing law enforcement personnel, don’t apply to them.

These are just two more examples of Party’s intrinsic disdain for those law and order that isn’t of their construction.