THIS IS WHY CITIZENS ALL OVER THE NATION ARE SHOUTING THEY HAVE NO VOICE IN PUBLIC POLICY AND THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS PUBLIC JUSTICE FROM A MISSING IN ACTION RULE OF LAW.
I want to move from our legislative branch to the system of courts and the judicial branch. I have made a few comments about how judges are not ruling under century-old precedent and ignoring Federal law and US Constitutional rights sometimes committing impeachable offenses. It was the Federal courts that allowed all of those trillions of dollars in Wall Street fraud go without justice---there were a few judges that protested and refused to rule on what all knew were bogus settlements. States like Maryland are known to have corrupt courts---citizens often pay to file a complaint that never makes it into trial even when it is a valid complaint. National media posed progressive in making Obama appointments to Supreme Court great because they were women----but both appointments were of Ivy League global neo-liberals----worse than any Republican appointment because Clinton neo-liberal judges will recognize TPP and a global corporate tribunal and global corporate tribunal court over national sovereignty issues. Allowing a Supreme Court to decide a national election is a complete change in judicial venue that works to undermine US election laws installed to maintain FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
Below you see that the same is occurring in all developing nations tied to neo-liberal International Economic Zones-----all this transition will have these nations subservient to the global corporate tribunal laws and courts. This is the same structure being built as global pols restructure our US court system.
The shifting scales of justice : the Supreme Court in neo-liberal India
Mayur Suresh; Siddharth Narrain
Publisher:New Delhi : Orient Blackswan, 2014.
Copyright (c) 1998 The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc
The American Journal of Comparative LawARTICLE:
Israel's 'Constitutional Revolution': The Legal Interpretation of Entrenched Civil Liberties in an Emerging Neo-Liberal Economic Order
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Obama's Kagan Choice Will Push Court to the Right
'Obama should do the right thing, the courageous thing, and fill Justice Stevens' seat with someone who can fill his shoes. If he nominates Elena Kagan, Obama will move the delicately balanced court to the Right. And that would be the wrong thing'.
Most Democratic voters now know the difference between an economic liberal that is neo-liberalism and that it IS right of center policy and the social democratic liberalism that controlled naked capitalism for social benefit. Obama and Clinton are indeed ULTRA-NEO-LIBERAL as this Republican media outlet says. Media is still trying to confuse the use of this term LIBERAL---This FOX NEWS article describes Kagan as ultra-neo-liberal bacause she is as was Sotomeyer. Both were sold to Democrats as liberals with a dash of progressive civil rights posing----but they both represent a Supreme Court that WILL RECOGNIZE A COLONIAL SUBSERVIENCE OF THE US TO THIS GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL AND COURT.
WHAT IS A NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE FOR THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW-----WILL SOON BE IGNORED BY THESE KINDS OF APPOINTMENTS. BUSH DID THE SAME WITH THE ROBERTS APPOINTMENT-----HIS RULINGS HAVE BEEN CONTROVERSIAL TO REAL REPUBLICANS AS WELL BECAUSE HE IS A NEO-CONSERVATIVE GLOBALIST.
No one was more shocked and angry than Republicans when the Roberts court rule for Corporations are People and the ObamaCare insurance mandate------that is because both rulings are tied to protecting global corporations.
We will hope if Bernie Sanders wins as President that he will appoint the next Supreme Court judge and that it will be social democratic liberal ---
Why Ultra-Liberal Obama Needs Kagan On the Court
By Ken Klukowski
Published May 10, 2010
President Obama speaks with Elena Kagan on Sunday, May 9. White House photo
President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan tells us a great deal about the Supreme Court that the president wants to create as his lasting legacy to shape the future of this country. It’s a far-left vision for America.
Elena Kagan is an interesting pick for the Supreme Court. She graduated from Princeton and then Harvard, where she was an editor of Harvard Law Review. She clerked for a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, then Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. She worked for a top national law firm, served in the White House, then went into academia as a legal scholar and became dean of Harvard Law School. In 2009, she became U.S. solicitor general (the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer).
Everyone else is talking about those facts. But Obama picked her for other reasons.
First, she’s a liberal without a paper trail. She’s never been a judge or had to lay out her beliefs on hot-button issues. Yet, as I explain in my new book, "The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency," Obama (like President George W. Bush) has a massive vetting team in place, and the only candidates on his short list are people that have been vouched for by some of the president’s most trusted advisers, who have known her for years and have a firm grasp of her interpretation of the Constitution and what she believes the role of the courts is in our society. In fact, she’s a personal friend of President Obama, and he knows her well.
They know she’s a liberal. D.C. Circuit Judge Abner Mikva was a stridently far-left judge. And Justice Thurgood Marshall—whom Kagan calls her legal hero—was the most liberal Supreme Court justice in American history, with ultra-left views on every single constitutional issue.
Second, she’s a brilliant consensus-builder. Kagan is a charismatic person who’s very effective at winning people over to her way of thinking. She also has a proven ability to frame liberal ideas in such a way as to win over opponents. And to be fair, she also welcomes dissent in a friendly and engaging way that makes her a very likeable and pleasant person. She’s sure to wow some senators during confirmation, and then be able to try to recruit moderate justices to support liberal ideas if she’s confirmed to the Court.
And third, until April she was only 49 years old. At age 50, Kagan’s in fine health. She could be on the Court for 30 or 40 years. Just think about that—Americans could be seeing a Justice Kagan on the Court until 2040 or 2050. With her, President Obama is taking full advantage of the fact that Supreme Court justices hold lifetime appointments.
In my book, "The Blueprint" my co-author Ken Blackwell and I discuss the kind of Supreme Court that President Obama needs to advance his agenda for this country.
President Obama needs a Supreme Court that will rule that the Constitution allows the federal government to impose Obamacare’s individual mandate, ordering Americans how they must spend their own money. He needs a Supreme Court that will allow him to impose job-killing cap-and-trade and card-check rules through executive action, instead of legislation. He needs a Supreme Court that says you have a right to same-sex marriage—which the Constitution does not mention—but that you do not have a right to own a gun—which the Constitution explicitly mentions in the Second Amendment.
In short, President Obama needs a Supreme Court that will endorse his far-left vision for America. As we show in “The Blueprint,” much of Obama’s agenda is unconstitutional. It cannot survive unless he creates a Supreme Court in his own image, with justices who share his vision.
President Obama firmly believes he has found such a justice in Elena Kagan.
It’s no surprise that President Obama would nominate a solid liberal to the Supreme Court; we’d all be surprised if he didn’t. And Kagan certainly has impressive credentials. But make no mistake: Elena Kagan is a liberal—a brilliant, young, charismatic liberal—and President Obama picked her because he needs her on the Court.
If you’re an ultra-liberal president, you could not do better than Elena Kagan. President Obama is going to push for a quick nomination to keep the Senate from delving into her views and philosophy, and he’s counting on her impressive accomplishments and winning personality to ensure a quick confirmation.
America needs a national debate on the scope of federal power and the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. America now has a nominee to a lifetime position on our highest court.
Let the debate begin.
___________________________________________________As media states Obama is moving the Supreme Court towards being more LIBERAL-----what we are seeing is a Kagan that will be the foundation for global corporate tribunal law. Harvard University is Wall Street and global neo-liberalism so when we know these pols graduate from Harvard AND they are attached to Harvard Law School------we see pols that do not recognize US Constitutional laws and branches of government---they only see corporate law and international law. I attended a symposium at Johns Hopkins---the neo-conservative side of global corporate rule----where heads of political science departments from mostly Ivy League Universities gathered to discuss the restructuring of political science departments. Most on this panel stated clearly-----US POLITICS ARE DEAD.
WE ARE RESTRUCTURING OUR POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS FOR GLOBAL CORPORATE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ONLY.
The universities across the US have been captured to all this before under Reagan/Clinton. That was when American university ECONOMICS Departments across the US started only teaching neo-liberal economics. This is why today every outlet----from media to academic organization talking about US economic issues are neo-liberal economists....even the ones posing progressive like Krugman.
The point is this-------WE CAN REVERSE ALL THIS EASY PEASY BY SIMPLY GETTING ALL GLOBAL CLINTON/OBAMA/BUSH POLS OUT OF OFFICE.
Rebuilding for this starts at state and local levels because we still have a US Constitution----Federal agencies and Rule of Law that must be enforced if a Mayor of Baltimore or Governor of Maryland bring these US agencies in---including the US Justice Department. They may pretend they can ignore enforcement of Federal law and US Constitutional rights----but when called by cities and states to do so---they MUST. All of these restructures have only just begun -----a few decades is not time enough to say IT'S TOO LATE TO STOP---BECAUSE IT IS NOT!
Kagan is indeed the neo-liberal anchor on the Supreme Court creating court precedent for ever expanding control by global corporate tribunal policies and courts.
Elena Kagan, Obama’s Fundamental Transformer on the Court
Posted on March 5, 2015, 1:31 pm by Keith Koffler
It was April Fools Day, 1998, and the Senate Commerce Committee had just voted 19-1 to pass sweeping anti-tobacco legislation. On the dais where senators had just voted and were still milling about, the White House domestic policy advisor steering the bill for Bill Clinton threw her arms around the committee’s Democratic staff director as the two celebrated an historic victory for health, for the children, and for the latest incursion by the government into the private sector.
The Clinton advisor was 37-year-old Elena Kagan, a passionate, brilliant advocate for her boss’s liberal social policies. I was there that day covering the proceedings as both the White House and tobacco legislation reporter for my publication, CongressDaily. It was unusual to see such open, public emotion by staffers.
The bill would ultimate fail on the Senate floor. Some of my sources told me they felt it was pushed too far to the left by Kagan. I can’t say for sure if it’s true.
What I can say is that when President Obama appointed her to the Supreme Court in 2010, he had it on good word from the Washington Democratic establishment that he was elevating someone committed not just to this or that legal principle, but to the Democratic policy agenda.
Kagan had never ruled in a case before, because she has never served as a judge, a highly unusual thing for a Supreme Court pick. Before Obama made her solicitor general in 2009, she’d never in her professional career argued a case in court. Any court. She’d pretty much either worked for Clinton or been in academia.
Most practicing attorneys and judges must learn to put their own feelings in check as they serve clients or try to fairly administer the law. Kagan had none of this experience. What she had were opinions. Liberal opinions.
And that, apparently, is what Obama wanted, and what he got. Kagan, according to SCOTUSblog, has voted the most frequently of all Justices with Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 94 percent of the time as of June 2014.
So I wasn’t the least bit surprised to read that during oral arguments Wednesday over the latest Obamacare challenge, Kagan expressed her annoyance with the whole thing. A “never-ending saga,” she said wearily and derisively of the Obamacare cases.
Kagan may well have a fine legal mind. But she is also steeped in an ideology extraneous to the law. Unlike Republican presidents, who have been unpleasantly surprised by the thinking of their Supreme Court picks, there will be no regrets for Obama. He chose her because she had a lot of a ideology and far fewer qualifications, just like he did when he became president.
With Kagan now just 54 years old, America will for many years to come have to endure another predictably liberal Justice.
But not just any other liberal Justice. She’s smart and agressive, and is viewed as the next great driver of liberal opinion on the Court. Maybe even Chief Justice one day. All the while dedicated to enshrining from within the judicial branch Obama’s dream of fundamentally transforming America.
The reference to resources refers to the fact that the US court system has progressively been defunded over these few decades as regards Rule of Law for citizen justice---both for citizens victim of crime and citizens charged with crime. The entire system developed for the American people and their court justice is being dismantled. This article shows our system is now nothing but plea deals----or canned pennies on the dollar corporate fraud against citizen lawsuits. Absolutely no investigations, no precedence, no due process for criminal or victim exists anymore because ----THE WHOLE US COURT SYSTEM HAS BEEN DEFUNDED AND DISMANTLED. Federal judges are so poorly paid no one wants to become a Federal judge and the number of judges so low as to burden those judges with extreme case loads----ergo, all of the plea bargaining. The same is happening in our state courts-----Maryland is geared to only corporate law and defending Maryland corporations in larger court cases-----the Maryland Attorney Generals and state's attorney completely ignore most corporate fraud and government corruption. If you file in court it is likely you never enter the court as judges are dismissing any complaint tied to Federal law, corporate accountability. Maryland has gone so far as to suggest it will place its court system online-----citizens will rarely see a court or jury live.
If you are poor you have seen this developing for decades------if you are middle-class you are watching it grow this past decade-----and if we continue to allow global pols to move this NEW WORLD ORDER---INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE/TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT policies along-----WE THE PEOPLE will have no courts that do not look like Judge Judy.
'The volume of cases in the criminal justice system and the limited resources to prosecute cases in court have lead to a growing use of plea bargains to resolve criminal cases. In 2011, 97% of federal criminal cases were resolved by plea bargains'.
When Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court a few decades ago---she shouted then about how this growing trend was killing our US court system and the Judicial Branch of government.
Plea Bargaining in Criminal Cases
December 17, 2012 by David J. Shestokas
If every criminal case went to trial, the criminal justice system would effectively shut down. The answer developed to address this problem is the plea bargain.
A “plea bargain” is an agreement between the prosecutor, the defendant’s attorney and the defendant. In return for the defendant entering a plea of guilty to a criminal charge, the prosecutor agrees to recommend to the judge a particular penalty. Plea bargaining allows the prosecutor to obtain guilty pleas in cases that might otherwise go to trial. The prosecution is relieved of the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial and the defendant receives a specific resolution of the charges against him.
The volume of cases in the criminal justice system and the limited resources to prosecute cases in court have lead to a growing use of plea bargains to resolve criminal cases. In 2011, 97% of federal criminal cases were resolved by plea bargains.
In 2012, the United States Supreme Court recognized the critical role of plea bargains in the criminal justice system and expanded the right to effective assistance of counsel in the context of plea bargaining.
Types of Plea Bargains
A plea agreement can take several forms. There are the “charge bargain”, the “sentence bargain” and the “fact bargain”. A plea agreement often contains elements of all three. Both felony and misdemeanor cases can be the subject of plea bargaining.
In a charge bargain, the prosecutor offers to amend the crimes that a defendant has been charged with to a lesser offense that carries a lesser penalty. An individual charged with burglary, a felony, may be offered a chance to plead guilty to criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor.
Alternatively, in return for a guilty plea to a specific charge such as driving under the influence, other charges arising out of the same event, perhaps minor traffic tickets like speeding or improper lane usage or other charges such as driving on a suspended license might be dropped or the penalties included in resolution of a more serious charge.
Charge bargains can be used to avoid mandatory minimum penalties if a charge is changed to one that does not have the same minimums, but the facts fit the alternate charge. The authority to alter charges is within the complete discretion of the prosecutor.
In this instance, the prosecutor agrees to make a specific recommendation to the judge of a sentence in return for a guilty plea. Most charges carry a wide range of sentence possibilities. Given the range of possible outcomes, many defendants prefer the certainty of a specific sentence rather than the uncertainty of a sentence following a guilty verdict at trial.
Following a trial the sentence is entirely at the discretion of the judge and the judge may impose the maximum sentence allowable by law.
Even when there is an agreement between the prosecution and defense sentence bargains must be approved by the trial judge. In most jurisdictions, if the judge does not approve of the agreement, the defendant is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.
In some jurisdictions, such as Illinois, provisions exist for judges to participate in plea discussions. Where this is available the parties have absolute certainty of the outcome of a guilty plea as there has been preapproval by the judge. In other jurisdictions, such as federal court, judges are prohibited from being a party to plea discussions.
This is seldom used and often happens in minor cases that may expose a defendant to civil liability to a crime victim. Fact bargaining involves an stipulation to certain facts or the introduction to certain evidence, thereby eliminating the need for the prosecutor to have to prove them, in return for an agreement not to introduce other facts into evidence. The defendant may then technically maintain a plea of not guilty, though it is understood he will be found guilty.
A guilty plea is an admission that may be used against a defendant in another court proceeding as to liability for specific acts. A finding of guilty after a trial is not such an admission. The fact bargaining process achieves a conviction for the prosecution without a full trial, and avoids a court admission for the defendant. In some jurisdictions this same result is achieved by a plea of no contest.
Elements of a Valid Plea Agreement
The defendant remains cloaked with his constitutional rights up until his guilty plea is entered. For an agreement to be valid, the following elements must be present:
- A voluntary waiver of constitutional rights
- A knowing waiver of these rights
- A factual basis for the charges to which the defendant is pleading
 When drafted most constitutional protections were aimed at the trial process, and most have been interpreted with considerations of trial in mind. In MISSOURI v. FRYE and LAFLER v. COOPER the Court recognized the critical role plea bargains play. In Frye, the defendant’s lawyer had failed to convey an offer of a reduced charge and 90 day sentence and defendant was sentenced to three years. In Cooper, defendant rejected an offer of 51 to 85 months based on improper advice from his lawyer, went to trial and was sentenced to 185 to 360 months. These cases point out the crucial role of plea bargaining.
 Plea bargaining requires defendants to waive multiple rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights: among the rights a defendant gives up: the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront hostile witnesses. Among the rights not given up are the right to effective assistance of counsel. See FN 1..
When a Clinton/Obama/Bush President pretends he/she can use Executive Order to allow state's rights take precedent to Federal enforcement as has occurred these few decades this sets the stage for the Federal courts almost exclusively handing corporate and international legal cases since no Federal law is being enforced. Neo-liberal pols pretend this is because of Republicans----but it is mostly caused because of Reagan Republican neo-liberal Democrats like Clinton and Obama. Their terms in office would have restored Federal court precedence to enforcement of all Federal laws but----they are far-right globalists after all so they too allowed Federal courts to be about corporate and international law. This is why there was no Wall STreet subprime mortgage fraud justice----the US Justice Department made the most low-ball settlement for pennies on the dollar because they protect corporate wealth. We don't see hardly any civil rights/labor rights/monopoly cases because state governors and mayor are not asking the Federal courts to step in.
As disturbing even to Republicans is this centralization of Federal corporate court cases to what are known to be corporate-friendly states like Delaware, NY, Nevada---were any complaints that do make it into court are always decided in corporate favor. The entire Wall Street fraud case disappeared in a Federal court for financial law IN NYC.
All of this sets the stage for a court system in the US that sees itself as only a corporate entity fighting in global corporate tribunal court for global corporations operating in the International Economic Zones in the US. They will have no tie to US laws or US Constitution----only global economic treaties
Why Does Federal Law Supersede State Law?
By Joseph Nicholson
The proper relationship between states and the national government has been one of the most hotly contested debates throughout American history. While the drafters of the Constitution reached several compromises and left some areas intentionally vague, they made clear that federal law should supersede state law through a piece of wording known today as the Supremacy Clause.
- The Constitution's Supremacy Clause makes it clear that any law passed by Congress trumps state law or constitution. Article IV, clause 2, specifically reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." But as plainly as this idea is spelled out in the text of the Constitution, application of the principle can be complex.
- Though the U.S. government is a separate national entity and not a federation of states, the fact that states remain as sovereign entities within the U.S. system is a unique feature of American government. The principle that states retain more than nominal sovereignty within the constitutional framework is called federalism, and is most frequently associated with the Ninth and 10th Amendments. Out of respect for federalism, the U.S. Supreme Court will not presume preemption of a state law by a federal law unless doing so is unavoidable.
- The legal doctrine of federal laws superseding state laws is called preemption. When a law passed by Congress plainly states that it is intended to preempt state laws, courts have little difficulty applying this express preemption. Somewhat more challenging, though still considered express preemption, is when a federal law does not state an intent to preempt state laws but is such that preemptive intent is implicit. Even when preemption is express, courts must still identify the scope and substance of federal preemption and preserve state laws to the extent possible.
- Courts also imply preemption of state law when there is no express preemption. Conflict preemption occurs when state and federal laws are contradictory such that operation of one frustrates the purpose of the other. When such an occasion arises, the federal law will always preempt the state law, providing it is a constitutional exercise of federal authority. Field preemption occurs when Congress regulates a field so completely as to exclude states. However, as in PG&E v. Energy Resources Commission, which involved licensing of nuclear power plants, the Supreme Court found that federal occupation of the field of nuclear plant safety did not prevent states from denying licenses on economic grounds.
- Preemption continues to be a balance of competing constitutional values. First, the founders clearly intended to establish a sovereign national government and, to at least some extent, a set of uniform laws that could hold the country together as one nation. At the same time, the Constitution reflects the compromise of federalism and preserves a significant role for states in the making of laws and governing of individuals. Federal court precedent, especially from the Supreme Court, has evolved significantly over time on the issue of preemption. Most likely, this evolution will continue, but the debate will continue to be guided by the balance between federalism and nationalism.
We can reverse this by rebuilding our courts and Rule of Law locally. Baltimore City CAN ENFORCE RULE OF LAW and it can fund our city courts so they will operate correctly and meet US Constitutional rights to all citizens to courts and legal representation.
IT STARTS THERE AND VOILA-----WE ARE BACK TO BEING A SOVEREIGN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!
Funding Cuts Will Compromise Federal Courts, Judges Tell Congress
Published onMarch 20, 2013
Video of 2014 Budget Hearing Report
A federal judge told Congressional appropriators of sequestration’s dire consequences for the federal courts; "the Judiciary cannot continue to operate at such drastically reduced funding levels without seriously compromising the Constitutional mission of the federal courts."
Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the Judicial Conference Budget Committee, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, along with Judge Thomas F. Hogan, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Read Judge Gibbons' testimony (pdf) | Read Judge Hogan's testimony (pdf)
"We cannot reduce our work if we face deep funding cuts," Judge Gibbons told the subcommittee. "We must adjudicate all cases that are filed with the courts, we must protect the community by supervising defendants awaiting trial and criminals on post-conviction release, we must provide qualified defense counsel for defendants who cannot afford representation, we must pay jurors. . . and ensure the safety and security of court staff, litigants, and the public in federal court facilities." Resources are needed to perform this work.
The Judiciary seeks $7.22 billion in appropriations, a 2.6 percent overall increase above the assumed fiscal year 2013 appropriations levels. This is the lowest requested increase on record and as Judge Gibbons pointed out, "the minimum amount required to meet our Constitutional and statutory responsibilities." The request also represents a current services budget that limits the growth of the Judiciary’s largest account, the Salaries and Expenses that funds the bulk of court operations, to just 2.3 percent. The increase does not restore any of the 1,800 staff lost over the last 18 months as a result of budget constraints.
Judges Gibbons and Hogan identified the Judiciary’s on-going cost-containment efforts in helping to limit the growth of the Judiciary’s budget. Among the initiatives are sharing administrative services among the courts, aggressively pursuing space reduction policies, including releasing space in underutilized non-resident facilities, and promoting the use of case budgeting to reduce defender services costs.
"I must point out, however," Judge Gibbons said, "that while cost containment has been helpful during the last several years of flat budgets, no amount of cost containment will offset the major reductions we face from sequestration."
Judge Gibbons urged the subcommittee in its deliberations to take into account the Judiciary’s unique Constitutional role "and the importance to our citizenry of an open, accessible, and well-functioning federal courts system. . . . If sufficient funding is not provided to the courts, we cannot provide the people of the United States the type of justice system that has been a hallmark of our liberty throughout our nation’s history."