Expanding Horizons, Embrace Diversity of Opinions, Life’s Realities, Politics and Stories
Wednesday, August 23, 2023
"The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek
Sunday, August 6, 2023
In a Democracy Should Politicians Appoint Judges or We The People Elect them?
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the appointment or election of judges
involves balancing the principles of democracy, independence of the judiciary,
and the need for qualified and impartial judges.
Different legal systems and societies may adopt different methods based
on their specific values and goals.
Yet what is the fairest, most honest and for the people in a democracy
that constantly sermonizes "A Just Society"?
Keeping in mind that A "Just Society" is a term frequently
used by politicians and their respective political party affiliates to describe
an ideal state of affairs where fairness, equality, and social justice are
prioritized and upheld.
Thus the specific interpretation of a Just Society may vary depending on
the political ideology and the context in which it is discussed.
For example, in Canada’s supreme court judges are appointed by the
political party in power at any given time and thus in reality are beholding
NOT to the electorate yet rather to the political party that appointed
them.
So, it is conceivable that some become political activist judges on
behalf of a political party’s ideology and NOT the law or the constitution.
When laws are changed, many diverse, and sometimes unexpected, interests
are affected.
Those who are responsible for the change must be alive to these
ramifications. Since the interests in question are best understood and
explained by those who are affected or would be affected themselves.
Thus, in my view, would it not be desirable that courts involved in the
reform of the law permit the representatives of affected interests to
participate in the litigation.
For example, most Canadian courts, at least those of civil jurisdiction,
are empowered to permit such participation, whether as a party, intervenor, or
amicus curiae. For the most part, however, the procedural rules that grant this
power do so in discretionary terms.
There are many examples, especially in the constitutional context, of
the generous exercise of this discretion. There have been, on the other hand,
some disturbing recent instances of courts refusing to allow important
interests to be represented in cases involving novel matters.
Judges are not, for the most part, the initiators of legal ideas. Unless
of course, they espouse the ideologies of the political masters that appointed
them as Judges! Most judicial innovations are conceived in barristers' craniums
(often after intercourse with academic publications).
Procedural practices which deprive the courts of exposure to the ideas
of counsel representing all significant points of view with respect to a
proposed legal change create a risk of ill-advised reform.
Would it not then be prudent to minimize this risk, by ensuring that the
rules of standing should ALWAYS be generous, both as to their terms and as to
their application of the laws, not ideologies or opinions.
Directly electing federal and state judges has both pros and cons.
Here are some points to consider:
Pros:
Accountability to the public: Elected judges are directly accountable to
the voters. This can promote transparency and responsiveness to public
interests since judges may be more inclined to rule in accordance with the will
of the people to maintain their positions.
Representation and diversity: Direct elections may lead to more diverse
benches, as candidates from different backgrounds and perspectives can campaign
for judgeships. This could improve the representation of the broader population
within the judiciary.
Reduced political bias: Since judges are not appointed by politicians,
there may be a lower risk of political bias influencing the selection process.
This could potentially lead to fairer decisions and reduced partisanship in the
judiciary.
Greater public engagement: Judicial elections can increase public
engagement with the legal system, as voters become more invested in
understanding the qualifications and positions of the candidates.
Checks on judicial power: Elected judges may be less insulated from
public scrutiny, which could serve as a check on the judiciary's power,
preventing potential abuses.
Cons:
Competence and qualifications: Judicial elections may prioritize
popularity over qualifications, leading to less experienced or unqualified
candidates winning elections. This could result in less competent judges on the
bench.
Influence of money and special interests: Judicial campaigns can be
expensive, and candidates may rely on donations from individuals or groups with
vested interests in the legal system. This may raise concerns about undue
influence and corruption.
The politicization of the judiciary: Elections can lead to judicial
candidates making campaign promises or catering to popular opinions, which
could compromise the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
Short-term focus: Elected judges may be inclined to make decisions to
please their base and secure re-election, potentially sacrificing long-term
justice and the protection of minority rights.
Lack of public awareness: Many voters may not be well-informed about
judicial candidates and their qualifications, leading to decisions based on
name recognition or other superficial factors.
Implications for unpopular decisions: Judges might be reluctant to make
unpopular but necessary decisions if they fear losing their position in the
next election.
You decide!
Saturday, July 29, 2023
Individual Freedom and Security
Individual freedom and Security are not so much the objective security of a Country's Constitution, or even the justice system but rather a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves.
While
constitutions and justice systems play crucial roles in safeguarding rights and
maintaining order, as prescripted by governments and then interpreted by the
courts, the true sense of confidence in one's ability to take care of oneself
and feel secure often goes beyond legal frameworks alone.
The concept
of individual freedom involves the absence of coercion or undue constraints on
personal choices and actions. When people feel free to make decisions that
align with their values and beliefs without fear of oppression or
discrimination, they have and thus experience a greater sense of freedom.
On the other
hand, security encompasses protection from harm, both physical and
psychological. It is not just limited to protection from external threats, such
as crime or invasion, but also extends to economic security, social security,
and a sense of overall well-being.
The sense of
confidence in taking care of oneself is a crucial aspect of freedom and
security. It goes beyond relying solely on the formal institutions and systems
established by the constitution or justice system of governments be they a
Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Totalitarian, Theocracy, Aristocracy or
Dictatorship.
All peoples
of the world, as individuals, have lives, relationships, families, and the
inherent right to reject or accept social trends and have that right and
freedom to free speech and make choices without being bullied, coerced,
intimidated, or cancelled or censored by either side of an issue?
Nor censored
and silenced by social media or mainstream media outlets of any kind.
As a true
democracy doesn’t need fact-blockers or politically biased fact-checkers, no
matter if they are from the government, agencies of the government or private
corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. We need more freedom
to speak and discuss opinions on all sides of any issue, not less.
Facebook,
LinkedIn, Google, and Yahoo are the next few Teck corporations that require new
owners who support open and free dialogue NOT censorship based on a particular
political ideology.
Every
individual has the right to define oneself and should others agree with your
self-definition or not is another matter entirely.
Unfortunately,
it seems obvious that the goal of the mainstream gay, lesbian, bisexual
transgender community is to force its ideals onto all citizens in their attempt
to reduce individual rights by creating a society that must conform to only one
viewpoint?
And when one
does not conform you are instantly labelled a homophobic or a Trans phobia
person!
Also, we have
permitted non-elected bureaucrats and technocrats to be appointed into
positions of setting policy based on their reasons and speech, without any
directly elected accountability or authority from the citizens at large.
Their
policies have revolved around deciding for us the cradle-to-grave decisions
that once were democratically reserved solely for families and individuals, NOT
the ideologies of only one political party.
Throughout
the world, we witness progressive liberal socialists deeply involved
emotionally in attacks on truth, reality, free speech, banking, and property
rights while ignoring the laws of the land, through the weaponization of the
legal systems, the courts etc. in my opinion.
“Freedom”
means the opportunity to go through life, with real goals not the artificial
goals of surrogate activities, like the media, and without interference,
manipulation, or supervision from anyone, especially from any large
organization or government.
Freedom means
being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of
the life-and-death issues of one’s existence; food, clothing, shelter, and
defence against whatever threats, real or conceived there may be in one’s
environment.
Freedom means
having power; not the power to control, or mandate other people but the power
to control the circumstances of one’s own life.
One does not
have judicial freedom if anyone else (especially the government or a large
organization or media) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,
tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.
It is
important not to confuse freedom or justice with mere permissiveness and
inducement by uncontrolled media reporters or journalists. Constitutional
rights are useful up to a point, yet they do not serve to guarantee much more
than what might be called the bourgeois conception of judicial freedom.
Freedom of
the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The
mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are
integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something
printed or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what
he/she has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the
media or have it un-ceremonially cancelled by the social media Teck giants,
hence it will have no practical effect.
To make an
impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most
individuals and small groups in today's so-called democracies worldwide.
Freedom
without the individual being in a legal position to protect oneself, then there
is no security for the individual or the security of a family.
Politicians
say, "Public safety is our top priority.”
Yet, why is
it that they do not enforce all the laws and bylaws currently on the books?
Further, why
do they not demand that prosecutors, judges, the laws, and sentencing be used
to protect public safety as a top priority and for the victims and innocent
citizens who pay the price for crimes committed by criminal elements within
society?
To solve the
problem of crime the laws must be enforced, prosecutors must demand the maximum
sentencing and judges must sentence all criminals, regardless of age, based on
the laws for crimes of adults under the criminal code NOT under The Youth
Criminal Justice Act.
Further, our
laws must be updated relating to sentencing i.e., crimes committee on public
transit of any kind must be considered as a domestic terrorist act and upon
conviction of the first offence, with or without a weapon, the minimum sentence
must be one of 15 years without parole of any kind and the first ten years of
the sentence must be served in a jail NOT any other institution like a halfway
house etc.
And
prosecutors or judges all of whom are not elected officials who do not adhere
to these new regulations must be FIRED and prohibited from ever holding or
working for any government position or within any government agency for life.
Plus receive a fine, a minimum fine of $1 MILLION for not protecting the
victims and innocent citizens worldwide.
A great read
@ https://www.mises.at/static/literatur/Buch/hayek-the-constitution-of-liberty.pdf
Sunday, July 23, 2023
Grassley Obtains & Releases FBI Record Alleging VP Biden Foreign Bribery Scheme
WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today released an unclassified FBI-generated record describing an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian business executive. Grassley acquired the record, an FD-1023, via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers.
“For the better part of a year, I’ve been pushing the Justice Department and FBI to provide details on its handling of very significant allegations from a trusted FBI informant implicating then-Vice President Biden in a criminal bribery scheme. While the FBI sought to obfuscate and redact, the American people can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats, thanks to brave and heroic whistleblowers. What did the Justice Department and FBI do with the detailed information in the document? And why have they tried to conceal it from Congress and the American people for so long? The Justice Department and FBI have failed to come clean, but Chairman Comer and I intend to find out,” Grassley said.
“The FBI’s Biden Bribery Record tracks closely with the evidence uncovered by the Oversight Committee’s Biden family influence-peddling investigation. In the FBI’s record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn’t pay the ‘big guy’ directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money,” House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer said. “At our hearing with IRS whistleblowers, they testified that they had never seen or heard of this record during the Biden criminal investigation, despite having potentially corroborating evidence. Given the misconduct and politicization at the Department of Justice, the American people must be able to read this record for themselves. I thank Senator Grassley for providing much-needed transparency to the American people. We must hold the Department of Justice accountable for seeking to bury this record to protect the Bidens.”
Grassley first disclosed the FBI’s possession of significant and voluminous evidence of potential criminality involving the Biden family last year. He has since worked to unearth the FBI record, eventually partnering with Comer on a subpoena to compel its public disclosure. After delays, the FBI provided a highly redacted version of the document to select members of the House of Representatives, but it remained shielded from the public and omitted key details, including references to recordings. Following the FBI’s failure to fully comply with the congressional subpoena, Grassley received the legally protected disclosure with limited redactions to protect a trusted FBI source, handling agents, department whistleblowers and identifiers related to other ongoing investigations.
‘Poluchili’
According to the FBI’s confidential human source, executives for Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, brought Hunter Biden on the board to “protect us through his dad, from all kinds of problems.” At the time, Burisma was seeking to do business in the United States, but was facing a corruption investigation in Ukraine, led by then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Regarding that investigation’s impact on its ambitions in North America, Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky reportedly said, “Don't worry Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.” Zlochevsky reportedly stated that he had to pay $5 million to Hunter Biden and $5 million to Joe Biden, an arrangement he described as ‘poluchili,’ which is Russian crime slang for being “forced or coerced to pay,” according to the document.
“Back-up”
Zlochevsky claimed to have many text messages and recordings that show that he was coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired. Specifically, he claimed to have two recordings with Joe Biden and 15 recordings with Hunter Biden. Zlochevsky also retained two documents, presumably financial records, as evidence of the arrangement, but said he didn’t send any funds directly to the “Big Guy,” a term understood to be a reference to Joe Biden. References to the “Big Guy” surfaced in communications involving other Biden family business arrangements independent of the Burisma arrangement. Zlochevsky claimed it would take investigators 10 years to uncover the illicit payments to the Bidens, according to the document.
Authorized for public release by Ranking Member Grassley/Chairman Com
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf
Related:
10.17.2022 | FBI Possesses Significant, Impactful, Voluminous Evidence of Potential Criminality in Biden Family Business Arrangements
05.03.2023 | Grassley, Comer Demand FBI Record Alleging Criminal Scheme Involving Then-VP Biden
05.10.2023 | Comer and Grassley on FBI Failing to Comply with Subpoena Deadline
05.24.2023 | Comer & Grassley Blast FBI for Refusing to Provide Subpoenaed Record Alleging Then-VP Biden Engaged in a Bribery Scheme
05.31.2023 | Grassley & Comer to Wray: Provide the Unclassified Documents or Face Contempt
06.06.2023 | Grassley's Message to the Biden DOJ and FBI: Quit Playing Games with the American People
06.12.2023 | Grassley: FBI Redacted References to Recordings in Biden Allegation Shared with Congress
06.21.2023 | Grassley, Graham Lead Senate Judiciary Committee GOP in Seeking Unredacted FBI Record at Center of Biden Allegations
07.18.2023 | Grassley, Johnson, Senate Republicans Demand DOJ and FBI Protect Whistleblowers Alleging Biden Bribery Scheme