Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Supreme Court Justices Should Stay If They're Able To Work

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Some liberals have recently called on Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so that President Barack Obama can choose her replacement. At 80, she is the oldest justice on the court. Some fear that if she chooses to stay, a Republican succesor to Obama might nominate another A. Scalia. God help us! But Justice Ginsburg believes that Supreme Court justices should not be influenced by political assessments of a party's future prospects with respect to the court.

One of Ginsburg's shining moments came with the dubious ascension of one George W. BUsh to the White House. With respect to Bush v Gore, Ginsberg's decision was the best, better even than those who agreed with her. Scalia's decision was poorly written, his conclusions wrong and wrong-headed.
Not only that --Ginsberg was, I believe, outraged that the case had been "dumped" on SCOTUS. At the end of her decsion, she wrote simply: I DISSENT --not "I respectfully dissent" as is normally the practice.

Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court. ...The extraordinary setting of this case has obscured the ordinary principle that dictates its proper resolution: Federal courts defer to state high courts' interpretations of their state's own law. This principle reflects the core of federalism, on which all agree. ...Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.I dissent.

--Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court (Bush v Gore)

---

GOP Hero, Saint Thomas More, was a Communist

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Thomas More --now 'Saint Thomas More' --was surely the most prominent “secular humanist” in England during the reign of Henry VIII. What makes More a “humanist”, like his friend Erasmus, is his belief in the perfectibility of humankind. What makes More a “secularist” was his insistence, unto his own death, in the separation of “God’s law” and “man’s law”, a principle that we refer to as the separation of Church and State.  Lest we forget, More died at the hands of an all powerful "state". Though it was not Henry VIII who said l'etat, c'est moi he might as well have done.

When the GOP embarked upon its unholy crusade to impeach Bill Clinton, it's many flacks tried to lend an imprimatur of legitimacy to their schemes by invoking the name of St/Sir Thomas More.

Typically, the GOP and prosecutor Kenneth Star specifically, mangled More and, in the process, proved themselves to be a party of mediocre intellects, opportunists, shallow sophists, perhaps, liars to a person! The following excerpt from Starr's interview with Diane Sawyer...

Kenneth Starr: Well, I love the letter and the spirit of the law, but it`s the letter of the law that protects us all. And, you know, St. Thomas Moore, Sir Thomas Moore put it so elegantly, you know, in A Man For All Seasons. He took the law very seriously and said, `That`s what protects us. It`s not the will of a human being. It`s not Henry VIII`s will. Henry VIII is under the law. We are all equal under the law.

In fact --no where in the play A Man For All Seasons did the character of Sir Thomas More say anything resembling that. More defended the obedience to "...man`s law, not God`s" [that makes More a secular humanist --a bad word among many throughout the right wing] and never made reference to either Henry VIII's law by name or description. The actual exchange that both David Schippers and Starr are both so fond of misquoting is as follows:

Roper: So now you`d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get at the Devil?
Roper: I`d cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh! (advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you --where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws --man's laws, not God's [emphasis mine]--and if you cut them down --and you’re just the man to do it --d`you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I`d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety`s sake.

In yet another memorable exchange:

Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

The dialogue above was written by Robert Bolt for the play and movie: A Man for All Seasons. But should you want to read the original More you will find comments equally biting, equally witty, comments that will most certainly curl the hair of modern right wing reactionaries and intellectual gnomes! More, they will charge, is a socialist for his comments having to do with the business class:

...so God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth. They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be.

--Of the Religions in Utopia, St. Thomas More

Clearly, none of the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton had understood the movie. None of them had bothered to learn anything about their “hero” other than what they had seen in a movie. Indeed, this film is among the best movies ever made. Sadly, the real meaning of the film was lost on Kenneth Starr. He came away from it having learned all the wrong lessons and that may be worse than having learned nothing at all.

---

---

When Native Americans Created Utopia

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

St. Thomas More's 'Utopia' was, interestingly, set in the New World. What More may not have known, however, is that many Native American tribes may have created a real utopia.

The Arawaks, for example. The Arawaks --wiped out entirely in an act of genocide perpetrated by Christopher Columbus --were notable for their crime free society, the equality accorded women, the utter lack of 'private property'. 'Private property' was a concept unknown to them.

Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.

--Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, Chapter 1: Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress

Other tribes, likewise, approached utopia, notably the Iroquois Confederation which heavily influenced the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

The Council of the Mohawk shall be divided into three parties as follows: Tekarihoken, Ayonhwhathah and Shadekariwade are the first party; Sharenhowaneh, Deyoenhegwenh and Oghrenghrehgowah are the second party, and Dehennakrineh, Aghstawenserenthah and Shoskoharowaneh are the third party. The third party is to listen only to the discussion of the first and second parties and if an error is made or the proceeding is irregular they are to call attention to it, and when the case is right and properly decided by the two parties they shall confirm the decision of the two parties and refer the case to the Seneca Lords for their decision. When the Seneca Lords have decided in accord with the Mohawk Lords, the case or question shall be referred to the Cayuga and Oneida Lords on the opposite side of the house.

6. I, Dekanawidah, appoint the Mohawk Lords the heads and the leaders of the Five Nations Confederacy. The Mohawk Lords are the foundation of the Great Peace and it shall, therefore, be against the Great Binding Law to pass measures in the Confederate Council after the Mohawk Lords have protested against them.

No council of the Confederate Lords shall be legal unless all the Mohawk Lords are present.

--Iroquois Constitution, Rights of the People of the Five Nations

Other tribes were equally advanced --the Choctaw, Cherokee, and farther north --the Mandan. Tragically, all the tribes were the victims of acts of genocide. I am of Choctaw/Cherokee descent but know very little of my ancestry but what had been handed down to my mother. In the case of the Mandan, less than 100 pure blood Mandan survive.

But --they had proven: Utopia IS possible.

---

---

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever filed against him. No 'probable cause' has been demanded of his captors by any judge. He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' simply decrees one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. In this case there is no 'probable cause' whatsoever that Assange committed any crime. No formal charges have been filed against him! Officially, he has not even been accused of a specific crime. He is a political prisoner. He is a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

TYRANNY

The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376 AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.

--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims

This is an outrage! Everyone should be outraged! If Julian Assange can be imprisoned though NO CHARGES have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.

Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.

--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law. It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him HEARD together with the probable cause that he violated ANY LAWS WHATSOEVER. If the 'authorities' don't even have enough 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!

---

---

FREE JULLIAN ASSANGE! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever been filed against him. No judge has demanded of his captors that they produce 'probable cause' that he has --in fact --committed any crime of any sort! He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' may simply decree one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. Officially, he is not accused of a specific crime. He is --simply --a political prisoner, a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

TYRANNY

The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.

--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims

This is an outrage! If Julian Assange can be imprisioned though no charges have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.

Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.

--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law

It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him heard together with the probable cause that he violated any laws whatsoever. If the 'authorities' cannot produce the 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!

---

---

A Citizen's First Defense Against Tyranny

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Over the years, I have had the good fortune to have met some interesting people, many of whom I considered to be mentors. Many of them probably never knew how much I had learned from them. Some were famous but many, many more were not but the lessons learned were just as important and, in many cases, more so.

Dick DeGuerin, a near legendary Houston-based defense attorney whom I knew briefly in Houston, TX, credited many people for having been his mentors. Those include, of course, lengendary trial lawyers --among them Percy Foreman with whom he worked for years. When 'Texas Monthly' interviewed DeGuerin, the famous lawyer underlined how important it is that all our citizens acquire an essential knowledge of those few documents that guarantee ---by law --our rights as people and citizens.

Times, took a kind of informal poll of people. He stood out on a corner and read various lines to people and asked them where it came from and if it was a valuable right, etc. A lot of people said “Well it must be the Communist Manifesto” or some radical writing or we don’t need that. What he was doing was just reading the Bill of Rights.

--Dick DeGuerin, Famous Defense Attorney as quoted in 'Texas Monthly'

Our 'rights' are guaranteed us in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! They are not 'common law'; they were written down on paper, put before the people and ratified! They are the law! We must be vigilent in their defense as the laws themselves have protected us from those who would deny them. Until A. Scalia can undo them, the mountainous body of case law that affirms them and protects us from tyranny.

We must be vigilent. It is clear of late that the government must not be expected to think for us! Nor will the powerful lobbies on K-street restrain themselves. They are not paid to protect us. They are paid handsomely by wealthy special interests NOT to protect the rights guaranteed you in the Constitution; rather --they are paid to protect --not rights but privileges that are claimed by the increasingly rich and powerful ruling elite. This elite of just 1 percent of the total population owns more, controls more 'wealth' than the rest of us combined.

If you would be free, you must defend freedom for every citizen.

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

--Eugene Debs, upon sentencing on November 18, 1918 to ten years in prison

Eugue Debs opposed U.S. entry into World War I but was arrested, jailed and sentenced for having opposed it in a speech. Free speech did not exist for Debs. But as he himself made clear, if anyone is denied free speech, if anyone is denied his/her freedom, WE are not free!

His sentence was appealed but upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision famous for a blatant fallacy, an obvious false analogy that would not be equaled until A. Scalia would join the court and reverse the laws of cause and effect! Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes likened Debs' opposition to the U. S. entry into WWI to '...yelling fire in a crowded theater' when there is no fire.

But ---there was a fire!

There was a clear and present danger then just as there is now --the 'clear and present danger' that is posed to every 'right' that is listed in the First Ten Amendements to the U.S. Constitution. Then as now, war --whether declared or undeclared, legitimate or no --seems always to be the convenient rationalization by which our very freedoms are or will be denied to us.

Tens of thousands of Americans are being held in super-maximum-security prisons where they are deprived of contact and psychologically destroyed. Undocumented workers are rounded up and vanish from their families for weeks or months. Militarized police units break down the doors of some 40,000 Americans a year and haul them away in the dead of night as if they were enemy combatants. Habeas corpus no longer exists.

American citizens can “legally” be assassinated. Illegal abductions, known euphemistically as “extraordinary rendition,” are a staple of the war on terror.

Secret evidence makes it impossible for the accused and their lawyers to see the charges against them. All this was experienced by the Argentines. Domestic violence, whether in the form of social unrest, riots or another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil, would, I fear, see the brutal tools of empire cemented into place in the homeland. At that point we would embark on our own version of the Dirty War.

--Chris Hedges, America's Dissappeared

In Orwell's '1984' the institutional denial of all rights and, indeed, humanity itself is 'justified', rationalized and made 'the law' because of 'war', a perpetual state of war. In 1984, the war may have been a fiction maintained by government for the very purpose of enslaving the population. Likewise, a 'War on Terrorism' need never end! Thus --the government need only cite it to deny you every ratified right listed in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

But --a citizen cannot defend those things about which he/she is ignorant. At the very least, a good citizen should be expected to have read the Bill of Rights --the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Every citizen should know what his/her rights are and should be prepared to quote them to your arresting officers and/or any 'judge' who would deny you those protections.

---

---