Comments

1. On October 11, 2023 at 9:57 pm, Olguy said:

   “Be a magazine smuggler like Mike Vanderboegh. What they think only matters if you let it.”

   Yes Sir. I remember that.
   God Bless’em.

2. On October 13, 2023 at 11:14 am, Sisu said:

   The following repeats a comment I posted to another of Prof. Smith’s posts on the 9th Circuit Appeals Court and Bonita:

   Accepting at face value, Prof. Smith’s analysis of the 9th Circuit “corrupt” review process provides further evidence that SCOTUS (the “one supreme Court”) needs to adopt a set of procedures for administering the “inferior courts”. SCOTUS has the constitutional charge to administer “inferior courts”, but does not fulfill its responsibilities to administer the “inferior courts”.

   More specifically, SCOTUS has the duty and charge to remove such inferior federal judges timely for “bad behaviour”, as Article. III. provides, i.e., when they are not demonstrating “good Behaviour”.

   Such bad behaviour would include: failure to base their decisions on the Constitution; failure to respect SCOTUS rulings without sound legal analysis to the contrary; creating controversy or facilitating the advancement of artificial questions of law; politicization of their judicial decisions; consistent and notorious misquoting and interpretation of precedents; abdicating their role and responsibilities to “magistrates” (Article. III. judges need be held responsible for every decision made by a magistrate under their supervision as if they had made the decision them self); corruption, “high crimes and misdemeanors”; gross incompetence; failure to conduct oneself at the highest standard of integrity and demeanor the People expect of judges; …

   Congressional “impeachment” is an alternative but not exclusive means of removing a federal judge; and impeachment is obviously wanting due to the pervasive corruption of the Congress and thus its impotence to act.

   Separately, SCOTUS has the means to bring charges of and findings of “contempt of court” against any federal or state appointed or elected official who ignores, defies or advocates, facilitates or otherwise brings into law a blatantly unconstitutional power of government over the People of their state or of the United States. … But, SCOTUS by its own omission and lack of budget allocation request does not have an effective power to enforce “punishments”; such punishments (I offer) should include: loss of any and all forms of “immunities” granted government actors; “disbarment”, if applicable; reparations from personal wealth alone (including stripping the guilty of lifetime government benefits); imprisonment: and loss of US citizenship.

3. On October 13, 2023 at 11:16 am, Sisu said:

   Typo above – SHB “Bonta”.

   Is there a way to edit posted comments (at all or within a certain time window) ?

4. On October 13, 2023 at 11:43 am, Dirk Williams said:

   Frankly I don’t care what the 9th says or does. I know many agency’s in Ca, I am a retired Deputy from Ca, whom are doing ziltch,nada, nothing if your not a felon.

   Most agency’s are simply done playing the yo-yo game, following blind dumb rules which are truthfully personal agenda’s by courts.

   What I care about well kinda of is what SCOTUS says, these lesser courts are political bodies whom have confused politics for law enforcement.

   A Republic is doomed when lesser courts defy the Supreme Court, I don’t know the answer to my next thought, but is their a mechanism to remove lesser court judges for failing to abide by the law of the land, that being a SCOTUS decision?

   If there isn’t, there should be.

   Dirk

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment