Gaming the Courts

SCOTUS and the Revolution

News broke yesterday that Jane Roberts, wife of the Chief Justice, was soliciting large sums of money from powerful law firms in exchange for recruiting lawyers. More than $10 million in eight years. There was a lot of speculation during those years about Roberts being compromised. Theories were bandied about, some involving blackmail. Turns out it was good old fashioned grift.

Now that is going to cost SCOTUS. The left is involved in a political coup against the conservative justices. I don’t think that there is enough there for an impeachment, but after the 2024 elections, who knows?

By Divemedic, ago

Pass an Amendment

Congress wants to pass a law requiring that SCOTUS adopt a code of conduct. I don’t think this is Constitutional. Any rules for SCOTUS would be in Article III of the Constitution, and there is nothing there granting Congress authority over the Supreme Court. If they want to do this, an Amendment would be required.

It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS reacts to this. The left wants badly to bring this court to heel, or even impeach a justice or two.

By Divemedic, ago

Every Trick in the Book

The New York indictment against President Trump was filed under seal. When a case is filed under seal, the parties involved are not supposed to say anything about the case. At this point, the only people who could release the details of the indictment are either the prosecutor, the members of the grand jury, or the court itself, all of whom are under orders to say nothing. Naturally, that doesn’t prevent the release of some details of the case. The left is freely releasing leaking the details of the indictment that look as bad as possible for the Defendant.

Now there are reports that the judge in the case is going to issue a gag order against the former President, with a penalty of jail time if he says a word in the court of public opinion. His opponents are under no similar restriction. This is a travesty of justice, and an illustration that our legal system has nothing to do with justice.

As I have said before, the left will stop at nothing to put Trump in prison. He goes there, and there is a high probability that he will commit suicide while alone in his cell and the cameras aren’t working.

By Divemedic, ago

This Makes Me Happy

A Federal Judge in Illinois ruled that outlawing particularly dangerous weapons, high capacity magazines, and dangerous weapons accords with US history and tradition, meaning that the state of Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales, which comports with the Second Amendment.

I love this decision because it doesn’t set court precedent, but is almost guaranteed to be overturned on appeal, which WILL have precedential meaning.

By Divemedic, ago

Chipping Away

Granted, this ruling has no real precedential value, but a Federal judge has said that marijuana users cannot have their 2A rights taken away. Essentially ruling that marijuana is commonly used, and using it isn’t an indicator of a propensity for violence, therefore making a user of the drug into a prohibited person is a step too far, in light of Bruen. That’s the second significant case this week.

That case is the gift that keeps on giving. The best part of this ruling is that the left will be torn: Support marijuana use, or oppose guns. What to do? LOL

By Divemedic, ago

Kavanaugh Is Wrong, IMO

This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.

There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?

My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.

David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.

 Here are the disturbing statistics:

The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.

That’s where he is wrong.

The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.

There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.

The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.

Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.

By Divemedic, ago

Until Proven Guilty

One of the basic tenets of this nation is that you are innocent until and unless you are proven guilty as confirmed by a jury of your peers.

Yet another is that you can’t be forced to testify, if that testimony can be used to prove your guilt, and the fact that you refused can’t be used against you.

That’s why this hit piece, insinuating that President Trump’s refusal to testify is in any way a reflection on his guilt or innocence.

By Divemedic, ago

Late to the Party

I can’t believe that I missed this story, but better late than never.

At first glance, you would not think that Nikki Fried would be suing the Florida Department of Law Enforcement because the FDLE declared that a woman was ineligible for a Florida CCW. After all, Fried is a notorious antigun asshat. But sue the Florida Department of Agriculture did.

It all started when a woman, identified by her initials of M.S., tried to get a concealed weapons permit. In Florida, it is the Department of Agriculture that issues the permits, but it is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that does the background checks. So FDLE did the background check and declared that M.S. has items in her criminal past that would make her ineligible to receive a CWP. The woman did what any of us would do and appealed the decision, demanding to know why she was denied. That’s when things went sideways.

In preparing for the appeal, the Dept of Agriculture asked FDLE to list the specific disqualifying offenses, but FDLE replied that her offenses must be kept secret due to Federal Law. Since Florida case law is explicit on this- if the Dept of Agriculture can’t list the specific disqualifying events, they must go ahead and issue the CWP.

I fully support this. If the government wants to take action against someone, they have to provide the evidence. If the providing the evidence is counter to the government’s interest, then they have a decision to make- release the evidence, or respect the rights of the citizen. There should be no “Open your mouth and close your eyes, you can trust us” stuff going on with regards to citizen rights.

At any rate, Fried’s department wanted to deny M.S.’s permit, so they filed a lawsuit against the FDLE, intending to force them to release the evidence. Now that Fried is out of office, that lawsuit has been settled out of court. I certainly hope that M.S. got her permit, or at least was able to see why not. A people cannot be free when they are subject to secret courts, hearings, laws, and decisions.

By Divemedic, ago

Violence at Work

I firmly believe that no employee should have to sit at work and be threatened with physical violence. While at work, I am threatened with violence against my person and family several times per week. Since I was suspended for the patient’s accusations the week before Christmas, I have been threatened at least three more times.

  • A Baker Act said that she would follow me home to see where I lived, then return to my home while I was at work to murder my entire family. She kept saying “you just wait until I catch you out in public.” I demanded that management call the cops. They did, but the police did nothing but take a report. That’s fine. At least there is a record if I have to smoke the crazy bitch at the end of my driveway. I carry nearly everywhere when I am not at work. “Catching” me outside of work and attacking me would be a critical, terminal failure in her victim selection process, but still expensive and time consuming for me.
  • The very next day, a patient came in with a complaint that aliens mutilated his genitals and he wanted them removed. When the Doctor discharged him, he said that if I didn’t let him stay, he would kill me. I had security remove him. He came back in 3 hours later and security refused to do a thing about it. Finally, four days later, he was Baker Acted and sent to a mental health facility.
  • Later that same night, a man came in and demanded to be permitted to see his wife, who had been brought in by ambulance and was off at radiology getting an X ray. I told him that she would be back in about 10 minutes, but he wanted to be taken to her NOW. I told him to have a little patience, and he replied that if I didn’t take him to her, we were gonna have a problem. I told him that if he wanted to issue threats and cause a scene, I would have security remove him. He kept yelling, so I had him tossed out.

One of the nurses that I work with told me that I have too short of a fuse when it comes to threats, and I need to understand that most people are just venting and don’t really mean it. I agree that most people don’t mean it, but how do you really tell the difference? Why should I have to? If a person has so little impulse control that they can’t stop themselves from issuing threats of death or physical violence every time something doesn’t go their way, when does it stop?

My hospital, like most employers, doesn’t permit concealed carry for employees. So what happens when one of these people who doesn’t mean it comes in and decides that they DO mean it? The one who pays the price for misjudging the idiot’s ill intent is me, but certainly not my employer.

It’s the attitude displayed by this fellow nurse that results in no one saying anything when a mass shooter turns out to have been saying all sorts of disturbing things, and people inevitably say “Why didn’t anyone report this before he snapped and killed half a dozen people?”

That’s my problem with the cop who threatened to kill me before physically attacking me. The police wouldn’t press charges because they said that the man had a medical problem and was delusional, therefore wasn’t responsible for his actions. OK, I can see that. But then why does someone who isn’t and can’t be responsible for their violent actions still permitted to carry a weapon under LEOSA because he is a retired cop?

It isn’t just my employer, it’s most employers. They have taken the attitude of “the customer is always right” to the extreme, and now we see attacks and threats by customers becoming commonplace. Why is that? Because our legal system absolves employers of liability for customers’ actions while at the same time punishing employers by making them liable for the actions taken by employees in self defense. It sets the stage for making employees more easily and cheaply being replaced than violent customers.

By Divemedic, ago