The U.S. Constitution NEVER provided a mandate requiring a law degree prior to being appointed “Supreme Court Justice.” The Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the usurpator that is the Constitution, NEVER even outlined a federal or national judiciary. Most state constitutions do NOT require a law degree to be elected as a Judge. Since the beginning of American history, more than 1 in 3 Supreme Court Justices were appointed despite never having obtained a law degree. However:
ONLY lawyers in fancy, black robes will tell you, “One MUST have a law degree in order to Understand & Interpret legislation.”
ONLY lawyers in fancy, black robes will tell you, “Term limits for Justices are unnecessary.”
ONLY neo-Americans and lawyers will sit there and LISTEN to them without laughing.
#1 by Epiphany on 09/27/2012 - 6:42 am
Political Correctness is merely another language, created by taking most words out of English and replacing some of them with bizarre euphemisms. It is no use talking to others these days, for one does not know how many still speak English, and how many babble in Politically Correct Jargon.
They take the term “Culture” for instance, and expand it out of all recognition– much like how GK Chesterton said that those in his day did to the word “Religion.” The Politically Correct are obsessed with Culture, and even babble about “Multiculturalism”, condemning only that of The West.
I think that anti–White bigotry starts with anti–German sentiment and/or anti–Southern sentiment. Then it expands and matastasizes into full blown anti–White hatred. You see, the anti–Whites do not know the true history of Africa, about how the Blacks sold other Blacks into Slavery– first to the Arab Muslims, and then to White Europeans.
The anti–White sentiment, of course, seeps into many Whites themselves. The world grows darker each and every day!
#2 by Dave on 09/27/2012 - 11:29 am
No one ever associates the fact that the judiciary commands the federal and state police and jailers.
The police are obedience trained puppies. Also, generally speaking, they aren’t very bright.
Orson Welles famously asked, “Why are the police so stupid?” He then answered his own question: “Because they never HAVE TO BE anything else.”
Nevertheless, the race war we pro-whites endlessly prattle on about is real for the police and jailers. They are the ones who get to fight it, every day.
AND it is THE JUDICIARY that sets the battlefield rules of engagement.
Also, or course, the police and jailers are under the same integration regime that the military is, and this integration regime is every bit as phony as the military’s. Honesty, I have never seen military on uniformed leave where soldiers or sailors ran in integrated groups. The whites and non-whites split out into racial segregation every time, without exception. I have never seen voluntary integration. I am pretty sure it doesn’t exist.
Police and jailers are as racially segregated as the military and the integration regime is as phony.
At some point police and jailers are going to cease complying with the judiciary. That will happen when they no longer tolerate the judiciary’s rules of engagement because of the heavy casualties they have suffered in the very real race war they are fighting.
The judiciary has to be taken out all at once. I long for the day that the entire judiciary is arrested as enemy combatants. I know that sounds nutty, but the real reason the judiciary has power is because the police are stupidly receiving their orders. That needs to stop. My prayer is that eventually the stupid police wake up and arrest their “commanders”.
#3 by Daniel Genseric on 09/28/2012 - 12:06 am
I think H. L. Mencken said it best, “A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers. ”
Those who go along with such a notion are nothing more than liberty-hating, sadomasochistic fools.
#4 by Jason on 09/28/2012 - 7:40 am
I would like to see the people understand their power on a jury – such things as jury nullification. We’ve developed this passive attitude that we must basically obey orders even when serving on a jury.
Imagine a jury agreeing that affirmative action cases are illegitimate in the first place.
#5 by Daniel Genseric on 09/28/2012 - 7:56 am
Bob wrote about Jury-made law in 2004.
Exactly the same thing has happened over and over in Anglo-Saxon history. The laws on the books in the early ninteenth century still made picking pockets a capital offense, but no jury would convict because they simply wouldn’t hang a ten-year-old child. – Bob
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2004/11/18/jurymade-law/
There will come a time when the same will be said about anti-white laws of the PAST. And this is exactly why a prosecutor almost ALWAYS prefers the ‘plea deal’ over taking a case to trial. They can’t predict what a Jury will do in the future; they just hope jurors follow their instructions.
And the last thing anyone in the courtroom is thinking about is whether the premise, upon which the Judge’s very presence in the courtroom is predicated (PRE-DICTATED), is flawed.