http://www.conservativedailynews.com ^ | february 18, 2013
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 6:19:19 PM by lowbridge
EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIDING FROM JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS AND ATTORNEYS, REMOVING CASES FROM THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET, EVIDENCE OF BOGUS CONFERENCES OF JUSTICES BEING REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN NO SUCH CONFERENCES TOOK PLACES AND THE JUSTICES BEING CLUELESS ABOUT THE VERY EXISTENCES OF HE CASE, EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL COMPLICITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TREASON IN THE MOST SERIOUS CASES DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.
Judicial cowardice must become a major issue in this country. Depending on the level of judge, many can be removed by recall. Removal from the bench varies by state. Usually state supreme court justices are appointed by governors. In November 2010, determined citizens in Iowa threw three of their Supreme Court Justices off the bench for their decision to allow a legal fiction called ‘same sex marriage’. There was a lot of sniveling, but the only thing that counts is the will of the people and the determined people in Iowa had their way.
It can happen in every state, it just takes boots on the ground. In New Jersey, here is the law:
New Jersey Statutes- Title 52- Chapter 14F – § 52:14F-4 – Administrative law judges; appointment, terms; compensation; recall
4. Permanent administrative law judges shall be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate to initial terms of one year. During this initial term, each judge shall be subject to a program of evaluation as delineated in section 5 of P.L.1978, c.67 (C.52:14F-5). First reappointment of a judge after this initial term shall be by the Governor for a term of four years and until the appointment and qualification of the judge’s successor.
Chief justice defends court’s impartiality
Associated Press ^ | 12/31/11 | ANNE FLAHERTY
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2011 9:02:54 PM by SmithL
WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday that he has “complete confidence” in his colleagues’ ability to step away from cases where their personal interests are at stake, and noted that judges should not be swayed by “partisan demands.”
The comment, included in Roberts’ year-end report, comes after lawmakers demanded that two Justices recuse themselves from the high court’s review of President Barack Obama’s health care law aimed at extending coverage to more than 30 million people.
Republicans want Justice Elena Kagan off the case because of her work in the Obama administration as solicitor general, whereas Democrats say Justice Clarence Thomas should back away because of his wife’s work with groups that opposed changes to the law.
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.Sotomayor, Unplugged supports racial preferencesWall Street Journal ^ | FEBRUARY 4, 2011 | COLLIN LEVYPosted on Saturday, February 05, 2011 8:23:45 AM by reaganaut1
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew attention to her racial politics this week during a speech at the University of Chicago Law School, where she took issue with the positions of some of her colleagues on the bench.
Since her confirmation hearings, in which she had to explain her previous assertion that a wise Latina woman “would more often than not reach a better conclusion” than a white man in the same position, Justice Sotomayor has typically been more guarded in her public comments. But at the student forum, she criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’s position in a 2007 case about whether public school admissions could be race-conscious to achieve diversity Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.
Writing for the court, Justice Roberts said that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Justice Sotomayor told U of C students that that formula is “too simple” for her. “I don’t borrow Chief Justice Roberts‘s description of what colorblindness is,” she said. “Our society is too complex to use that kind of analysis.” She also told students that, contrary to fellow Justice Antonin Scalia, she was “not sure” whether determining the original intent of the Constitution was the most important consideration in deciding a case.
Justice Sotomayor also talked about being the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. “To the extent my presence has given people of color a sense of belonging with the court, then I have made a difference,” she said. The justice said that she doesn’t let her racial identity affect her judgment in cases but is convinced that others pre-judge her. “People have views of me and expectations of me that are based on stereotypes,” she said.Excerpt Read more at online.wsj.com …
New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court Attorney calls for recusal of Obama judicial appointees…
BORN IN THE USA?
New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court
Attorney calls for recusal of Obama judicial appointees
Posted: December 30, 2010
11:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Another legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the White House has been docketed for consideration before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the plaintiff this time formally is asking that the justices appointed by Obama, the “respondent” in the case, be excluded.
“There is a widespread perception among ‘conservative’ media figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that judicial appointments have been made by the respondent Obama with the expectation of favors in return. This has combined with a campaign of ridicule and ‘unthinkability’ on these serious issues led by the press spokesman of the respondent Obama among others,” said a “motion to recuse” submitted by attorneys working on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired military officer.
“What is very much at issue here is the question of public perception. Will this court be bound by the Constitution and the law that it sets out under the Constitution? It is important that this court, above all institutions, preserves and protects the Constitution and a rule of law based upon it,” the motion states.
(Story continues below)
It also reminded the justices of the verbal attack they sustained from Obama at last year’s State of the Union address, when Obama publicly criticized their ruling in an election case.
“We would think that this is particularly the case in light of the historically unprecedented attack on this court’s determination to uphold the constitutional rule of law engaged in by the respondent Obama during the State of the Union Address that he gave in January of 2010. It is as if he and those working with him and backing him believe that this court and the federal judiciary can be manipulated and intimidated in the manner that investigations have revealed as having occurred in the courts of Cook County, Illinois.
When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president’s next State of the Union address, Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them.Excerpt Read more at foxnews.com …