Hans Bader of CEI expands on his earlier arguments, this time ending with a call for the removal of Judge Vaughey from the bench:
At the hearing, Judge Cornelius Vaughey reportedly “said he didn’t care” about the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg ruling on the First Amendment. Sadly, Judge Vaughey has absolute immunity against monetary damages for any constitutional violations he has committed against Aaron Walker. But judges have been removed from the bench for less in neighboring states. (See this example from Virginia, where the state supreme court removed a judge for actions such as flipping a coin to resolve a holiday visitation dispute between two parents). Judge Cornelius J. Vaughey should be removed from the bench. (Criticism of judicial misconduct is not only protected by the First Amendment, see Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941), but invaluable in improving the justice system, as former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and the late Judge Roger Miner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have noted.)
Even putting aside the fact that Judge Vaughey’s ruling violates the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg line of cases, his order still must be set aside by the appeals court if it is faithful to other Constitutional requirements. Appeals courts have a duty to review Judge Vaughey’s bizarre finding that “threats” came from “countless blogs” de novo without any deference to his factual findings, in light of the First Amendment issue presented. See In re George T., 93 P.3d 1007 (Cal. 2004) (applying de novo review to finding that poem constituted “threat,” because of the First Amendment, despite the fact that courts usually defer to trial courts’ factual findings in ordinary cases); Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984) (de novo review mandated by U.S. Supreme Court). The appeals courts also have a constitutional duty to conduct a full examination of the record, and to reject conclusory findings not supported by specific examples (like Judge Vaughey’s restraining order, which alleged “threats” but failed to give a single example). See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 513 (1984); Byrd v. Faber, 565 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ohio 1991) (specificity requirement when conduct might be protected by First Amendment); cf. Foor v. Juvenile Servs. Admin., 552 A.2d 947, 959 (Md. 1989) (even in non-First Amendment case, emotional distress claims must be pled with specificity under Maryland law).
As I noted in my last post on the subject, in a cultural climate increasingly accepting of a politicized judiciary, the left thrive. Which leaves us with little recourse save either a change in the culture or else a conscious decision to escape from what is becoming a legal system that no longer applies justice evenly — and so no longer has a legitimate claim over us as a matter of fundamental legal principle: when the law is capricious, politicized, or “living,” judges become sovereigns and we are their subjects.
And I’m nobody’s subject.
Let’s hope the appeals court does the right thing. Because with every new decision like this one coming from Judge Vaughey, those who value liberty will be forced to confront the fact that the instrumentalities of government, when controlled by the left, don’t share those same values — and in fact are working overtime to deconstruct them and replace them with the values of egalitarianism that are, by their very nature, anathema to liberty strictly understood.
These are not good people. /spit
While this may come about one day, it will surely not happen with dispatch, nor with the wide spread coverage and the attention it should attain by desert. If it happens, it will come quietly and to all appearances unrelated to this case.
Yet, it ought to be an infamous example of wrongdoing from the bench, but I think will never be generally known.
Thus, by this gulf of is and ought, we know where we live today: in a place which does not value freedom highly, but something else altogether.
– One interesting aspect of all of this Leftist All-in for activism, anti-personal freedoms campaign is that they seem to be blishfully unaware that they are cutting their own throats with every instance of an erroaded liberty.
– The rapacious leaders of activism, in their unbridled zeal to dismantle the old state of conservatism are preparing thenselves for total enslavement.
– Not very insightful on the part of our elitist class, but typical of what ensues when ideology surplants common sense, and change becomes an end onto itself.
If Consumers Union had just said the truth; that Bose speakers are just arrays of crappy paper drivers that intentionally obscure any positional information about the source music, they would have been well-justified. As it was, they narrowly escaped…something.
That went to SCOTUS? Speechless.
with the values of egalitarianism
Meaning that all distinctions are erased: good and evil, predator and prey, aggressor and victim, truth and lies, liberty and tyranny.
They seem to be blishfully unaware that they are cutting their own throats with every instance of an eroded liberty
Don’t be absurd: they either relish the idea of being controlled (it frees one from the bother of having to make decisions or take initiative) or they envision themselves as wearing the boot on the neck.
We may even be spared the revolution eating its own, given that Ameritopia requires scads of drones to occupy the cubes where the red tape is spun, so they’ll all have Things To Do instead of being lined up against the wall.
– Absurd? Tell that to the countless Leftist countries that thought they could “control the beast”, once unleashed.
– The pages of history are repleat with sadder, but wiser, failed societies that wandered down this rose colored path.
– Unfortunately, mankind has a panchat for repeating the same mistakes.
One interesting aspect of all of this Leftist All-in for activism, anti-personal freedoms campaign is that they seem to be blishfully unaware that they are cutting their own throats with every instance of an erroaded liberty.
What dicentra said. Also, remember Stanley Fish’s “Two Cheers for Double Standards.”
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/two-cheers-for-double-standards/
And Animal Farm.
They have no interest in cutting their own throats.
As John Edwards reminds us there are two Americas. In one America you go to jail for telling the truth about leftists. In the other America John Edwards skates with a mistrial.
I’m pretty sure Trotsky dies in Animal Farm. And plenty of women got raped in Occupy camps.
There are the things they intend to happen and then there are the things that actually happen to the vast majority of them every time they take over.
– You’ll excuse me if I say I don’t give a rats patootie about what happens to “them”.
– I doubt that most of the 40 million that died under Stalin had ever even heard of Marx.
Robespierre also discovered that the Terror he so believed in ended with his head separated from his body.
In the other America John Edwards skates with a mistrial.
I’m going to heartily disagree with you there. Yes, Edwards is a first class turd and an empty soulless shell of a politician, but anytime our ridiculous campaign finance laws takes it in the tush, we should celebrate. This is a victory for freedom, even if you shouldn’t want to stand in the same zip code as the victor.
http://www.steynonline.com/5005/a-ravening-justice
I’m not sure who that is directed at, BBH.
My point goes towards the instigators so it doesn’t have much to do with anyone else.
Point taken, Dale.
Of course, it is their petard so I still find some justice when they’re hoist upon it.
I’m pretty sure Trotsky dies in Animal Farm. And plenty of women got raped in Occupy camps.
There are the things they intend to happen and then there are the things that actually happen to the vast majority of them every time they take over.
Sure. And?
I’m not trying to be jerky when I say that. But the fact there shiny utopias invariably turn to shit doesn’t change the calculus of their thinking. You can’t make an omelete.
Then there’s the far more important matter of correct intentions. Such bad things are not intended (at least for themselves, and their cherished abstractions) and thus do not matter. Correct intentions matter far more than experience amongst the Left. Thus, the fact that Four Legs Good eventually turns into Two Legs Better, and that such was foreseeable from the shattering of law, custom, tradition, precedent, etc.–doesn’t enter into it.
“*Their* shiny utopias.”
Argh. Long week.
BBH said they’re cutting their own throats, Dale. Di said absurd.
Blissfully unaware.
Under that context we’re talking about what happens as compared to what they think might happen.
Hence my examples of what they’re blissfully unaware of.
The “blissfully unaware” should be in quotes.
Ah, got it. My bad. Sorry, bh.
Good point.
– I was responding to Di’s comment on the dogma of the Left, and their idea’s that collectivism can be controlled.
– The only thing known to man that works to provide industry/wealth is incentive, and there are no incentives in collectivism.
– This is a concept a 6 year old with a lemonade stand can understand, but apparently it’s beypung the grasp of the typical Lefty.
had your friends collect your records and then change your number
No problem, Dale.
I’m guessing we all agree that a) they’re fundamentally motivated by their simple will to power and b) that’s not gonna work out so well for most of them.
– feets….Was that a sneaky chicken joke?
[…] Goldstein read Mr. Bader’s post and comments: As I noted in my last post on the subject, in a cultural climate increasingly accepting of a […]
Why did the sneaky chicken cross the road?
And I’m nobody’s subject.
I aim to misbehave.
(Promocode “WAREHOUSENERDS” for 20% off! I got my dad their “One Ping Only” t-shirt for his birthday, and all his old fart friends think it’s the coolest thing since Raquel Welch got attacked by antibodies.)