Another reason why the Supreme Court should pick their own nominees for the position of judges. In a recent article, the writer who is reporting on a case currently in the Appellate court, makes mention of who appointed the judges deciding the case. While this has no bearing on their decision, the mention of it, which is totally appropriate, gives the allusion of partisanship. Read the part of the article below and tell me if it didn’t stick in your mind

“Griffith, a Republican appointee, and Judge Judith Rogers, a Democratic appointee, questioned the administration’s arguments that the House panel has no legal standing to enforce its subpoena and that there is broad presidential immunity that applies to efforts to seek testimony from close advisers.

The other judge, Republican appointee Karen Henderson, said little.” Reported by Reuters

If that article had read that the judges were appointed by the Supreme Court, then it would make you feel different about any partisanship. Optics matter, even if they aren’t true. I think it’s time to find a reasonable solution that allows the Supreme Court or a cabinet appointed by them, to select who will be on the judiciary.

As the ongoing impeachment process turns its wheel like a soap opera straight from the day time writers, one thing is evident, there is no neutrality. Both sides made arguments that could be seen as correct and both sides are holding to their respective arguments like security blankets. As I listened, I tried my best to be impartial and what I learned was that I was not even remotely qualified to make a decision on whether impeachment is the way to go. After it was all over, I was more confused about the legitimacy of the proceedings then before it started. This article is not, though, about impeachment but how could you fix a problem that seems to be over the common persons ability to decipher and obviously does not belong in the realm of partisan politics. The answer seemed extremely obvious, at least to me. You need an impartial and neutral arena.

The government, for better or for worse and as a flight attendant that I once dated would say, is what it is. The questions that were asked by lawmakers seemed to be both relevant and irrelevant at the same time. A perfect example is the question about donations to political parties to the legal scholars arguing whether impeachment was the proper avenue to take. It was a real relevant question as it seemed to hit a bias right on the nose, the problem is though that the person that was asking the question, for better or for worse, probably did not contribute to his opposing party either and he is being a staunch defender for his side, making the question almost irrelevant. These questions are a two way street and they seemed to bog down the testimony. As I was listening to the legal scholars, I would think they are right, then I would hear the opposing view and think he is also right. Both sides can’t be right unless both sides are also wrong, it is what it is, thanks Kimberly.

So how do you get past this impasse? You need a third and neutral referee that could make that decision and they would also have to be legal scholars so they can get into the minutia of the argument and decipher the elements of the case and come up with a just decision. Wait, we do have a third part of government, the judicial branch, who happened to be experts on the law. How lucky. Or is it? This is why in past silly blogs that I have written, I expressed my concern on how judges are chosen and why they aren’t chosen by the branch of government that they work for but chosen by the two other branches of government whose fate could be ultimately be decided by them.

This article is renewed effort in trying to fix a problem which can be seen as glaring in circumstances like these. It is my belief that the judicial branch should pick their own members (judges), have the executive branch choose from one on the list and then have the legislative body confirm them. This would almost erase any conflict of interest that could come up in cases like this. While I feel that the judicial branch is as neutral as it gets, some will still argue and have argued that some judges are or were bias due to who appointed them. The phrase Obama judges and Bush judges and Trump judges have taken a toll on the impartiality that once prior seemed unquestionable in the judicial branch.

The constitution is over 200 years old, if my computer was over two hundred years old, it would definitely need updates. Maybe the constitution, which I always held was a living document because its writing affects living lives, should be resuscitated and given some new life. Our forefathers did their best to think of every scenario possible and they were pretty smart people, but as times roll along, their might have been problems that they did not foresee and that should be addressed. I believe giving the judicial branch more autonomy should be on the top of that list, at least in who should be hired to represent them.

What I am ultimately saying is that impeachment, a extremely powerful decision, should fall to the people that have nothing to gain or lose by the verdict, which should be the judicial branch and that’s why they should be free of attachments, as much as possible, to the other branches.

The Supreme Court weighs in on LGBQT rights in a case that will define if Title VII represents the gay community. I’m not a legal scholar nor am I a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I have represented myself in court and I lost horribly but I did learn a few things, number 1, hire a lawyer and number 2, the courts are not really about common sense but interpreting the laws that are already in place, some of which make no god damn sense at all. I’m going to try and see if I, as a failed pro se litigant, can make sense of what is going to happen. The nine justices are going to interpret whether or not sexual orientation under Title VII of the civil rights act pertains to the gay community. There are two ways to do that. The first is to figure out if congress meant to say that sexual orientation was originally written to cover gay people when implemented, the second is to read the law literally and ask does the words sexual orientation actually means who you are attracted to sexually, whether hetero or homo in sexuality, or what genitalia you were born with. The good news for the plaintiffs, the gay community, is that the law didn’t specifically say one way or the other what it meant. Orientation is a real fluid word that can be interpreted as to mean that whomever you are oriented to be attracted to, thus fitting the definition of sexual orientation. The other good news is that gender is represented under Title VII. In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual’s transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual’s sex. The plaintiff’s have previous case law and enforcement on their side. This doesn’t guarantee them a win, as a matter of fact, the case is being brought forth because of those cases. The prevailing thought is to feel that discriminating against anyone for any reason that doesn’t harm you, just your sense of religious right and wrong, and even that’s questionable, isn’t a good reason to fire someone but that’s not the Supreme Court’s mandate in deciding this case, it’s to decide or decipher what congress meant when they wrote the provision for the Civil Rights Act. The court has some leeway here, since sex or sexual orientation is such a broad term and can include LGBQT, the justices could just conclude that it is part of the Civil Rights Act, they can also ask congress to clarify the provision without making a ruling (I think), or they could say that it was not the original intent and shoot the case down, which would be disastrous and set the country back some 30 or 40 years by forcing people to hide their true nature just to gain employment. The thought that a person that is gay can be fired just because he/she is gay is obviously flawed and their should be protections for such discriminatory behavior. The fact is that it would be taken up by congress if the plaintiffs failed in their bid (I would hope) and give protections to these people. The prudent and just thing, now this is my opinion, is to have the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs and give them a much deserved and common sense win, since the law is so broad and open to interpretation, because it will eventually happen and why make these people wait for what we all know is the right thing to do. The ruling will be saying love who you want, it’s your choice not your bosses. Now that makes sense, doesn’t it?

Huffman is getting 2 weeks in jail for a college scandal. 2 weeks, can you believe that none sense. I don’t know what’s happening to this country. People are going to jail for 2 weeks. Huffman should appeal that decision, that’s ridiculous. Why are you putting this lady in jail at all. There have been other people that have done the same thing and the Justice Department didn’t even deem it worthy to investigate. Because she’s wealthy, they are going to put her in jail. That’s not a reason for someone to go to jail. You’re socioeconomic class is never a good reason to put someone in jail. She’s getting punished for being rich. I know that might sound funny but once you allow socioeconomic reasons to dictate jail sentences, the poor will never get a fair chance. If you can lock people up for being rich for doing something dumb that didn’t hurt anyone and that a middle class or poor person did before and didn’t get any charges filed, then they laid out a blueprint to do the same thing to poor people and letting rich people off. A great example is the big bank bail outs, they knew that their actions would do harm yet not one banker saw the inside of a prison, a poor person robs a bank, basically the same thing the rich person did by other means and they get 20 years. Huffman shouldn’t see a day in jail. Laws and punishment should be constant, they should not conflict based on personal issues. FREE Felicity Huffman. FREE Felicity Huffman. For some reason, I don’t think that will catch on.

“Domestic terrorism is a threat to the American people and our democracy. Acts of violence intended to intimidate civilian populations or to influence or affect government policy should be prosecuted as domestic terrorism regardless of the ideology behind them,” the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA)….

That’s a fair statement and an unfair statement at the same time. I think, to make it completely fair, that ideologies, if those ideologies promote violence, and who and how they came to be, should be part of the criminal trial, regardless who was behind the shootings. A full investigation would and should include exactly how these people became mass shooters and should include anyone, i.e. people on 8chan, that had anything to do with this hysteria. You locked up the blind sheikh because of hate speech that incited violence, something we all agree with, why would you not do it for domestic terrorism? That would mean that anyone, regardless of how they influenced these young and impressionable people to commit these horrific acts, should face the justice system. I don’t care if they whispered it, did it through an internet site, had a group meeting, hypnotized them or through magic by wave of hands, they should all be held responsible if just one person is injured. I don’t think half measures are going to get the job done.

In New Jersey, they stopped a domestic terrorism case with no one getting injured, why does anyone have to get injured?

We all know the story of Frankenstein and how he was brought to life with electricity by the doctor who instilled in him, through that method, a desire to kill. Shouldn’t the doctor also be held responsible?