[picapp align="none" wrap="false" link="term=judge+gavel&iid=5224108" src="http://view4.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/5224108/portrait-woman-magistrate/portrait-woman-magistrate.jpg?size=500&imageId=5224108" width="372" height="459" /]
UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Because I said so.
Today, I am dumbfounded. I am also now more than ever determined to get the point across at the need to elect Constitutional Judges. We need judges to vote based on the rule of law and the Constitution.
Judges that rule based on international law, previous illegal precedents, race, feelings, or momentum, should never even be allowed to come to a vote. They are the keys to the destruction of the fabric of our society.
Case in point comes from the Washington comPost today. We have news that, based on only the questions the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked, there is a sense of how the court will rule.
Arrogant as that may be, let's take a look at the article in question.
From Jerry Markon, Staff writer for the Washington comPost:
Judge questions Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona immigration law
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 1, 2010; 6:27 PM
A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law, leaving uncertain the Obama administration's chances of stopping the law from taking effect.
So far so good. Except the writer is trying to predict how the entire court will rule based on the questions from one judge. Kind of like having a few elect scientists trying to predict the climate 100 years from now. (cough)
Here is the part that got my goat, and I hope it does yours...
With Noonan, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, so bluntly stating his views, legal experts said the government's chances of having the injunction upheld may rest with the other two judges on Monday's panel: Carlos T. Bea and Richard A. Paez.
Bea is also a Republican appointee and tends to vote with the court's conservative wing, which could help Arizona's chances. Paez is a Democratic appointee.
But Bea and Paez are Hispanic, and it is Hispanics who are most upset about the Arizona law. "Perhaps this is one area where Bea might not vote as a so-called conservative because he himself is an immigrant,'' said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and an expert on the 9th Circuit.
Seriously? If I were a judge I would be pissed and file a defamation lawsuit against anyone who would dare state that I would make rulings solely based on my race or heritage. SHEEESH!!! Does this LAW PROFESSOR believe that it is ok for a judge to make their decision solely because of how a law might affect their feelings? (Let's assume for the moment that we are not talking about the 9th Circus Court for a moment and think in general terms) (But, I acknowledge that we are talking about the 9th Circus Court so all this may be spitting in the wind)
But, are you with me here folks?!??! You have a law professor at a prestigious college stating that several judges may go against the Constitution and vote based on their racial feelings about a law. Worse than that, this professor believes that Judge Bea has normally just voted along "party" lines in the past.
This is exactly why elections matter!! We can't have any sense of impropriety in our judicial system else confidence and reliability falls out the window and riots and vigilante justice reigns.
If we can't trust our judges to rule only on the law and Constitution, then what good are they?
This is why we have to elect strong Conservative Constitutional judges to these key positions. Ones that restore the blindfold to our old Lady of Justice.
Right now, she is peeking out from that blindfold, getting a lay of the land, seeing how she can rule to best suit her party's power and wealth.
This can stop with your vote.