Friday, July 22, 2005

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts

July 22, 2005

Following Judge John Roberts nomination for the Supreme Court, Senator Charles Schumer of New York held a press conference. He said that Supreme Court nominees are different and deserve a higher level of scrutiny than other judicial appointments because they MAKE laws. Someone ought to tell the senator that making laws is a function of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. A judge who is going to legislate from the bench is precisely the kind of person who shouldn't be there. And a senator who apparently is looking for a Supreme Court justice who will do that (for causes the senator favors, of course)--rather than adhere to the Constitution--isn't fit to be a senator. Senators are supposed to honor and defend the Consitution, not seek appointments who will undermine it to advance their own agendas.


Anonymous said...

Due to requests for more information, the following webpage contains additional material for lobbying and letter-writing in support of nominating
a libertarian to the U.S. Supreme Court (instead of John Roberts)

Here is a fan mail web page

A libertarian victory against "drug dogs" is at the U.S. Supreme Court as the federal bureaucracy tries to overturn the decision

PLAYBOY magazine's September issue covers Attorney Rex Curry, the libertarian who handled the original motion to suppress evidence

Montana News Association cover's the topic at

A new Legal Defense Fund is ready to fight laws that ban price gouging during disasters such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Pro Price
Gouging Legal Defense Fund (PPGLDF) will provide aid to people who are harassed or charged under anti-gouging laws. News media are asked to inform
the public that pro bono help is available to buyers or sellers whenever law enforcement interferes with their commerce.

Criminal defense lawyers are organizing to end shortages caused by the laws. The laws frighten citizens from offering goods and services to disaster
victims, and the laws frighten disaster victims from negotiating for needed goods and services.

PPGLDF attorneys are arranging seminars to train lawyers in attacking laws that ban gouging and to train lawyers to assist defendants in court.

The spokesperson for the PPGLDF is attorney Rex Curry, a Tampa lawyer who was inspired by personal experiences with price gouging laws after recent
hurricanes in Tampa, Florida.

"Florida's Attorney General Charlie Crist created gas shortages where there were no shortages," said Curry "After Katrina, Crist created a fear of
accusation that caused stations to stop selling gasoline that they had on hand. Crist created shortages, misery and suffering. His behavior could have
killed people."

Anti-gouging laws are another example of how the USA's police state is growing. The anti-gouging mentality causes deaths, suffering, shortages,
misery, and poverty as it did in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (62 million dead) and the Peoples' Republic of China (35 million dead).

Government schools do not teaching basic economics, nor economic freedom, individual liberty and property rights. It is another reason why government
schools must end. And Charlie Crist is the poster child for ending government schools.

Curry also argued the motion to suppress in another victory against Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist and against drug dogs. The dog case is
presently before the United States Supreme Court.

The Court recently asked for an official response and transcripts in the case, peaking interest in the case. Playboy Magazine's September issue quoted Curry stating "drug dogs are natural libertarians - without constant retraining they lose interest in the war on drugs. Let's return them to protecting people from violence and
theft, which is the only proper purpose of law enforcement anyway."

"All anti-gouging laws should be retired for the same reason that all drug dogs should be retired," according to Curry, adding "Attorney General Crist
is crucifying Floridians. Crist shows that socialism starts shortages. He gives lawyers a bad name."

Curry is a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). Curry helps educate NACDL members, the legal community, and the
general public that price gouging is good.

The NACDL listserv contained posts from some lawyers who have the same economic ignorance as the media. Some NACDL lawyers opposed price gouging and defended a police-state and stated "Better to have Mussolini than Michael Brown running FEMA," and "Mao more than ever," and "Mussolini .... was, at first, a very good leader" and referred reverentially to the anti-Semitic Karl Marx whose work inspired the worst murderers in history. Marx caused widespread poverty via the same arguments posited against price gouging. Florida's Attorney General Charlie Crist uses similar arguments.

The NACDL is hosting a conference "Defending the White Collar Case: In and Out of Court" at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC on
September 22-23.

"There is a misconception that price gouging is only a white-collar crime," said Curry "Many poor people who desperately need money to buy food,
medicine and other necessities are harassed and threatened if they try to sell anything they have to raise needed funds for purchases. The poor are
also prevented from buying necessities when police harass and frighten away providers."

Anonymous said...

The Epitome Factor

The Supreme Court on January 6, 2006 has scheduled the conference for case #05-7260, the case presented will prove to be the epitome of unfair labor practices. This case is not unique as to its circumstances as they pertain to the NLRA-National Labor Relations Act, however what will set this case apart from prior filings will be the fact that the lower courts ignored the Black and White of the NLRA.
According to the NLRA it is an unfair labor practice to hire new employees after an organized strike has ceased by settlement of the contract, if there are available jobs employees are to be reinstated.
The present case is again the epitome of all that have come before the Supreme Court previously.
For this reason-One day after the strike had been settled the employer instead of reinstating employees, hired new employees displacing the employees who participated an a legal strike, as the NLRA reads that is an unfair labor practice.
More troubling to this case is that the Defendants failed to dispute ANY of the documented evidence provided to the lower courts???
The petitioner/plaintiffs must now look to the US Supreme Court to use the authority given to them by Congress to enforce the NLRA so the protected rights of the Act are judicated with consistancy, further set presidence so that the lower courts do not under mind not only the Act but the previous opinions of Our Supreme Court.