Leadership II

January 13, 2011

After seeing a few interviews of GOP “leaders” in the past week, I have to wonder if there really is an a conspiracy to poison not just our politics but our society as well.

After a deranged woman interrupted Congress last week with the psychotic blathering of a “birther”, House “leader” Boehner was asked if he would tell his lunatic birther members in the GOP caucus to knock it off.

He responded by saying he believed that President Obama was born a U.S. citizen was a fact, but that he would not speak with his “birthers” because that is their opinion and they have a right to their opinion.

A leader can distinguish between opinion and  fact and speak out against lies.

Since the shootings in Tuscon, a bevy of GOP “leaders” have been asked if comments such as Rep. Bachman saying she wanted all Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous”, or Palin’s gun sight targeting of Democratic Congresspersons were irresponsible.

Not one GOP “leader” would state the obvious and condemn the irresponsible words and actions of these people.

There is no connection that we know of at this time between Palin’s targeting of Rep. Giffords (although Ms. Giffords predicted what would happen). But given this Country’s history of political violence, the rifle target was immature and irresponsible.

Silence in the face of wrongdoing is the same as condoning it. That is why we should suspect the intent of the GOP leadership.

Your Rights Under Attack

January 12, 2011

Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Young has recommended that the State eliminate dozens of Judgeships, primarily in the Detroit area and the Upper Peninsula. The rationale is that the State can save nearly $2 million, which ought to be the first clue that money has nothing to do with the recommendation. When has a Judge taken on the Legislature’s role of budgeting? The real issue many suspect is the continuing attack upon theright to have access to the Courts and the right to a trial by a jury of peers. Why would we reduce the number of Judges in one of the busiest jurisdictions in the State, if not to further overburden the docket and delay or deny justice for the people?

For years now I have been warning of the increasing influence of the Chamber of Commerce and money from Big Business in electing judges who essentially act as agents for corporations and insurance companies. 20 years ago it was extremely rare for judges to reverse jury verdicts, where it is fairly common now when the verdict is in favor of a victim and against a corporation. 20 years ago lawyers were allowed to conduct voir dire to assure that their clients would get a fair jury. Now judges routinely prebent attorneys any meaningful voir dire. I could go on and on with the changes we have seen in Michigan and across the Country that have made it increasingly difficult for the ordinary citizen to get civil justice, although I still believe that for the most part our judiciary remains a fair and open refuge for victims to seek justice. However, more and more attorneys in Michigan find themselves defending the integrity of the system as well as the rights of their clients.

I know I will continue to defend and protect the system and encourage every citizen to do the same. Without access to a fair and impartial justice system, people face the choice of acting illegally or simply accepting injustice. I love the Law and I care deeply about every client I represent.  I will not hesitate to protect both of them.

Supreme Danger

January 12, 2011

The more that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks to the public, the more apparent it becomes how dangerous he is  to our liberties as American citizens, particularly to women.

In an interview with California Lawyer he said that his belief is that the Constitution does not protect women from acts of discrimination. That’s right, a Supreme Court Justice declared that there are no Constitutional protections for women.

This is what the Constitution says:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It couldn’t be clearer to an intellectually honest person, unless that person does not consider a woman to be a person.  To be completely fair, Scalia argues that when men wrote those words, they could not have meant to include women, therefore it was not their intent to do what their words plainly say. Scalia believes that he is required to think like an 18th Century man when interpreting the Constitution.

Scalia is the leader of a secretive organization of radical judges and lawyers called “Federalists” whose goal is to reverse   court rulings guaranteeing the rights of individuals to be free from discrimination and secure equal justice. The idea that the word “person” does not mean a woman because men in 1868 didn’t consider them to be persons is an example of how Federalists justify denying our rights.

I suppose it is a mixed blessing that Scalia’s bias is so apparent. On the one hand, it is distressing to realize that the judiciary has devolved so badly that such pronouncements such as his can be made so openly (and arrogantly). On the other hand, Federalists have been expressing their radical agenda in rulings for years without the public awareness needed to resist them.

The real danger of jurists like Scalia and other Federalists is that if they are successful and, when the people realize they have no more access to the Courts and a jury of peers, then they will inevitably take the law into their own hands.  The public should be made aware of the danger that Justice Scalia and Federalists pose to our liberties.