0 comment Tuesday, August 12, 2014 | admin
Court rules for White firefighters in discrimination case
WASHINGTON � The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance.
In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.''
Some on the right are hailing this as a huge victory, and while it's true that we should be happy for good news wherever we find it, it does not seem clear that this is as decisive as some are indicating.
Here is Jared Taylor's take on it, which is somewhat less celebratory than that of most conservative commentators so far:
Conservatives are heralding the Supreme Court�s decision in the Ricci case as a great victory�and it is true that the results of the New Haven firemen�s exam will be accepted and several whites will be promoted to lieutenant and captain. However, as Justice Anthony Kennedy conceded in his majority decision, the court dodged the central question of whether it is constitutional to discriminate against white people in the name of "fairness" for non-whites. This decision is not even half a loaf for whites�it�s more like a few crumbs.
As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in a concurring opinion, today�s decision "merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the [real] question," namely whether "disparate impact" is legitimate grounds for throwing out employment standards.
[...]
The Court did one useful thing, however. It made it harder to junk test results because of "disparate impact" by saying there had to be a "strong basis in evidence" that the harm this did to whites was justified. But as Justice Ruth Ginsberg pointed out correctly�in what was otherwise a nasty dissent�all this does is set up yet another murky standard that will make it hard for employers to know what is legal and what is not.''
Earlier today I was saying that perhaps these jobs should be assigned by throwing names into a hat, that being the only truly 'fair' way. I thought I was being ironic, but according to Steve Sailer, that kind of thing is already a reality in Chicago, where a lottery is used:
'...lotteries are exactly what cities such as Chicago are already doing with the results of firefighter tests, in an attempt to comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission�s "Four-Fifths Rule". This regulation puts the burden of proof in discrimination cases on employers when blacks aren�t hired or promoted at least 80 percent as often as whites.
There�s a reason you don�t see much in the newspapers about cities hiring firefighters by lottery: this method is terrifying to anybody who might someday be trapped in a burning building. So politicians don�t explain too vividly to the public what exactly they are up to.''
Truth is stranger than fiction.
We had a fire last year, and though it was minor, it was unsettling when a group of firefighters arrived, one of their number being a diminutive girl of about 23.
According to some people, seeing a female firefighter should have been comforting to me:
Firefighters say diversity can be especially important in emergencies. Victims may feel more comfortable when they see first responders who look similar to them or understand their neighborhoods, they say.
White members of Engine Company 60 on the South Side of Chicago see it differently. The mention of New Haven drew a cluster of firefighters who said they have seen examples of reverse discrimination and voiced concern that procedures used to increase diversity in the higher ranks may harm the public.''
I agree with the guys of Engine Company 60. I told a family member that I demand to have strapping 6-foot-4 men arriving to fight the fire, rather than a petite girl. The idea of hiring anybody less than the most qualified and the fittest to do these jobs is an affront to society and a risk to human life.
But the Ricci case of course goes far beyond who is hired to fight fires. At issue is the whole affirmative action farce, and the widespread effect on our society of placing people in jobs based on skin color or gender rather than choosing the best and the smartest.
And it has to do with the whole tortured issue of ''fairness'', which the left likes to talk about. To them, ''fair'' seems to mean exacting an eye for an eye. They insist that rampant racial favoritism kept Whites dominant for many years in this country, and to believe this, they must deny that actual racial differences exist. And they believe that 'affirmative action' is a legitimate way to exact revenge or payback.
It's politically unacceptable for them to acknowledge that in the old days, people were generally hired on merit, and the best man usually won. To make merit the main criterion would, unfortunately for the left and their minority clients, mean that the latter would have to compete with Whites on a truly equal basis, and they are afraid this would mean a return to the bad old days.
Obviously, too, this SCOTUS decision does not reflect well on Sonia Sotomayor, as her opinion is again repudiated by the Supreme Court. But this will not deter her supporters, who will spin in in some way to deflect any criticism of her by Republicans.
WASHINGTON � The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance.
In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.''
Some on the right are hailing this as a huge victory, and while it's true that we should be happy for good news wherever we find it, it does not seem clear that this is as decisive as some are indicating.
Here is Jared Taylor's take on it, which is somewhat less celebratory than that of most conservative commentators so far:
Conservatives are heralding the Supreme Court�s decision in the Ricci case as a great victory�and it is true that the results of the New Haven firemen�s exam will be accepted and several whites will be promoted to lieutenant and captain. However, as Justice Anthony Kennedy conceded in his majority decision, the court dodged the central question of whether it is constitutional to discriminate against white people in the name of "fairness" for non-whites. This decision is not even half a loaf for whites�it�s more like a few crumbs.
As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in a concurring opinion, today�s decision "merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the [real] question," namely whether "disparate impact" is legitimate grounds for throwing out employment standards.
[...]
The Court did one useful thing, however. It made it harder to junk test results because of "disparate impact" by saying there had to be a "strong basis in evidence" that the harm this did to whites was justified. But as Justice Ruth Ginsberg pointed out correctly�in what was otherwise a nasty dissent�all this does is set up yet another murky standard that will make it hard for employers to know what is legal and what is not.''
Earlier today I was saying that perhaps these jobs should be assigned by throwing names into a hat, that being the only truly 'fair' way. I thought I was being ironic, but according to Steve Sailer, that kind of thing is already a reality in Chicago, where a lottery is used:
'...lotteries are exactly what cities such as Chicago are already doing with the results of firefighter tests, in an attempt to comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission�s "Four-Fifths Rule". This regulation puts the burden of proof in discrimination cases on employers when blacks aren�t hired or promoted at least 80 percent as often as whites.
There�s a reason you don�t see much in the newspapers about cities hiring firefighters by lottery: this method is terrifying to anybody who might someday be trapped in a burning building. So politicians don�t explain too vividly to the public what exactly they are up to.''
Truth is stranger than fiction.
We had a fire last year, and though it was minor, it was unsettling when a group of firefighters arrived, one of their number being a diminutive girl of about 23.
According to some people, seeing a female firefighter should have been comforting to me:
Firefighters say diversity can be especially important in emergencies. Victims may feel more comfortable when they see first responders who look similar to them or understand their neighborhoods, they say.
White members of Engine Company 60 on the South Side of Chicago see it differently. The mention of New Haven drew a cluster of firefighters who said they have seen examples of reverse discrimination and voiced concern that procedures used to increase diversity in the higher ranks may harm the public.''
I agree with the guys of Engine Company 60. I told a family member that I demand to have strapping 6-foot-4 men arriving to fight the fire, rather than a petite girl. The idea of hiring anybody less than the most qualified and the fittest to do these jobs is an affront to society and a risk to human life.
But the Ricci case of course goes far beyond who is hired to fight fires. At issue is the whole affirmative action farce, and the widespread effect on our society of placing people in jobs based on skin color or gender rather than choosing the best and the smartest.
And it has to do with the whole tortured issue of ''fairness'', which the left likes to talk about. To them, ''fair'' seems to mean exacting an eye for an eye. They insist that rampant racial favoritism kept Whites dominant for many years in this country, and to believe this, they must deny that actual racial differences exist. And they believe that 'affirmative action' is a legitimate way to exact revenge or payback.
It's politically unacceptable for them to acknowledge that in the old days, people were generally hired on merit, and the best man usually won. To make merit the main criterion would, unfortunately for the left and their minority clients, mean that the latter would have to compete with Whites on a truly equal basis, and they are afraid this would mean a return to the bad old days.
Obviously, too, this SCOTUS decision does not reflect well on Sonia Sotomayor, as her opinion is again repudiated by the Supreme Court. But this will not deter her supporters, who will spin in in some way to deflect any criticism of her by Republicans.
Labels: Affirmative Action, Judicial System, Racial Bias, Racial Division, Racial Quotas, Supreme Court
0 comment Friday, June 6, 2014 | admin
We all know that much of Europe is under the same cultural and demographic assault as we are. This case, which is reminiscent of the Tony Martin case in the UK some years back, shows that there is still in France a kernel of belief in the basic right of self-defense.
For those who don't recall the Tony Martin case in Britain, Tony Martin, in attempting to defend himself after repeated home invasions, shot two trespassers in his home. He served prison time for doing what most of us here in America take for granted, simply defending his own life and property, in his own home.
Another case along these lines was the Joe Horn incident in Pasadena, Texas, a couple of years ago, about which I wrote on this blog. Texas of course has the 'castle doctrine' which allows homeowners to defend themselves with deadly force when called for. The grand jury refused to indict Mr. Horn, who was luckier than the hapless Mr. Martin in the UK and, apparently, than René Galinier in France, the septuagenarian who was arrested for shooting burglars.
Although a group called the Ligue du Midi ('League of the South') is campaigning to free Mr. Galinier, things don't look good for him, according to zazie's comments on the discussion thread at Gallia Watch.
My sympathies go out to this man, who is of a generation which was brought up under the old traditions, in which self-defense was understood to be a right of free people. Men like Mr. Galinier and Tony Martin in the UK are unfortunate casualties of this 'new order' of things in which we, the rightful peoples of the Western countries, are asked to 'go gently into that good night,' to lie down and passively surrender when confronted with a threat to our existence. These men just haven't learned, I suppose, that the old rules have been rendered null and void, and the new rule is that it is 'racist' to defend your property and your very life, if those who are trying to take them from you are members of some 'victim' group. Mr. Galinier's burglars were Roma gypsies, apparently, as were Mr. Martin's. Joe Horn's confrontation was with two illegal Latin Americans in the act of burglary.
I can only hope that cases like this will wake up the 'silent majority' in Europe, the people who still remember the sane old days, in which men were men and still had the right to defend themselves without fear of prosecution -- or is it persecution? -- by the ideologues in charge of most Western governments now.
Tiberge at Gallia Watch posts the logo of the Ligue du Midi, with the French motto translated as 'Masters in our house.' Something for us to think about.
"The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey."
-Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War", Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
For those who don't recall the Tony Martin case in Britain, Tony Martin, in attempting to defend himself after repeated home invasions, shot two trespassers in his home. He served prison time for doing what most of us here in America take for granted, simply defending his own life and property, in his own home.
Another case along these lines was the Joe Horn incident in Pasadena, Texas, a couple of years ago, about which I wrote on this blog. Texas of course has the 'castle doctrine' which allows homeowners to defend themselves with deadly force when called for. The grand jury refused to indict Mr. Horn, who was luckier than the hapless Mr. Martin in the UK and, apparently, than René Galinier in France, the septuagenarian who was arrested for shooting burglars.
Although a group called the Ligue du Midi ('League of the South') is campaigning to free Mr. Galinier, things don't look good for him, according to zazie's comments on the discussion thread at Gallia Watch.
My sympathies go out to this man, who is of a generation which was brought up under the old traditions, in which self-defense was understood to be a right of free people. Men like Mr. Galinier and Tony Martin in the UK are unfortunate casualties of this 'new order' of things in which we, the rightful peoples of the Western countries, are asked to 'go gently into that good night,' to lie down and passively surrender when confronted with a threat to our existence. These men just haven't learned, I suppose, that the old rules have been rendered null and void, and the new rule is that it is 'racist' to defend your property and your very life, if those who are trying to take them from you are members of some 'victim' group. Mr. Galinier's burglars were Roma gypsies, apparently, as were Mr. Martin's. Joe Horn's confrontation was with two illegal Latin Americans in the act of burglary.
I can only hope that cases like this will wake up the 'silent majority' in Europe, the people who still remember the sane old days, in which men were men and still had the right to defend themselves without fear of prosecution -- or is it persecution? -- by the ideologues in charge of most Western governments now.
Tiberge at Gallia Watch posts the logo of the Ligue du Midi, with the French motto translated as 'Masters in our house.' Something for us to think about.
"The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey."
-Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War", Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
Labels: Crime, Europe, France, Injustice, Judicial System, Political Correctness, Self-Defense
0 comment Wednesday, June 4, 2014 | admin
The usual suspects complain:
James Kelly, CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, called for action Friday after reading remarks from state Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson regarding African-American populations in prison.
The justices said African Americans are overrepresented because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
"What are these two guys doing on the State Supreme Court?" Kelly asked.
He is calling for Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Madsen to "establish a special commission on racial disproportions in the criminal-justice system and to make recommendations on how to modernize the system and ensure equal justice before the law," according to an Urban League news release.'
Kelly goes on to say that if the justices believe that blacks commit more crimes, then 'there's a problem that goes to the top.' Meaning, I presume, that the problem CANNOT be a problem of black crime.
Chief Justice Madsen has, as this source notes, upheld the state's ban on gay ''marriage'', which does hint that she might not be the typical politically correct leftist judge. Whether or not the 'special commission' willl be established is not yet known but the usual course of things is for everybody to bow down to the demands of ''the African-American community.'' Their wish is our command, apparently.
Judge Richard Sanders, who is one of the judges who made the controversial statements (note: these days, ''controversial statement" usually means ''truth") is also not your typically PC judge, although his opponent in the current election accuses him of siding with criminal defendants too frequently -- so he hardly appears to be a tough law-and-order judge, if indeed there is such a thing these days.
It's about time that somebody started defying the race-hucksters and the PC commissars. Will the judges stand their ground? Or will they be reduced to the usual groveling and apologizing? Let's hope not.
Does the judicial system discriminate against blacks or other minorities? The obvious, and simplest, reply to that often-repeated charge is that blacks and some other minorities commit more crimes -- to which the politically correct response is that police ''target'' minorities and let Whites get away with crime. How long will people let these charges go unchallenged?
There are also disparities in male-female differences in rates of incarceration and sentencing. Does this mean that the justice system is biased? It surely goes against the grain of political correctness, as according to the PC belief system, men (specifically White men) are privileged, and women of all races are victims of discrimination. So where is the bias here? While it's apparently true that women commit less crime, or less violent crime, they are nonetheless capable of heinous acts, and are not ''better people'' than men. However women do receive lesser sentences when they murder, for instance, and are less likely to be executed in states where the death penalty exists.
See the statistics here.
Bizarrely, most liberals argue that women are still discriminated against in the justice system, and of course if they had their way nobody would be executed, except thought-criminals perhaps.
When we compare women and men in the justice system, few people question the obvious disparities; but when it comes to minorities, especially blacks, it is taboo to even consider the obvious fact that differing rates of crime among the races might be the main reason for the disparities in arrest, conviction, and sentencing.
So we go on with this absurd charade of pretending that blacks are blameless victims of racism, always sinned against and never sinning, not even capable of sin. How can any sane adult pretend to believe such foolishness? How can any judge, whose business is to administer justice, pretend that one group of people is above scrutiny?
Judges, ideally, are to be impartial, and yet what is ''political correctness'' but an all-encompassing system of partiality, of putting minority groups in a special privileged category, off-limits to criticism?
James Kelly, CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, called for action Friday after reading remarks from state Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson regarding African-American populations in prison.
The justices said African Americans are overrepresented because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
"What are these two guys doing on the State Supreme Court?" Kelly asked.
He is calling for Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Madsen to "establish a special commission on racial disproportions in the criminal-justice system and to make recommendations on how to modernize the system and ensure equal justice before the law," according to an Urban League news release.'
Kelly goes on to say that if the justices believe that blacks commit more crimes, then 'there's a problem that goes to the top.' Meaning, I presume, that the problem CANNOT be a problem of black crime.
Chief Justice Madsen has, as this source notes, upheld the state's ban on gay ''marriage'', which does hint that she might not be the typical politically correct leftist judge. Whether or not the 'special commission' willl be established is not yet known but the usual course of things is for everybody to bow down to the demands of ''the African-American community.'' Their wish is our command, apparently.
Judge Richard Sanders, who is one of the judges who made the controversial statements (note: these days, ''controversial statement" usually means ''truth") is also not your typically PC judge, although his opponent in the current election accuses him of siding with criminal defendants too frequently -- so he hardly appears to be a tough law-and-order judge, if indeed there is such a thing these days.
It's about time that somebody started defying the race-hucksters and the PC commissars. Will the judges stand their ground? Or will they be reduced to the usual groveling and apologizing? Let's hope not.
Does the judicial system discriminate against blacks or other minorities? The obvious, and simplest, reply to that often-repeated charge is that blacks and some other minorities commit more crimes -- to which the politically correct response is that police ''target'' minorities and let Whites get away with crime. How long will people let these charges go unchallenged?
There are also disparities in male-female differences in rates of incarceration and sentencing. Does this mean that the justice system is biased? It surely goes against the grain of political correctness, as according to the PC belief system, men (specifically White men) are privileged, and women of all races are victims of discrimination. So where is the bias here? While it's apparently true that women commit less crime, or less violent crime, they are nonetheless capable of heinous acts, and are not ''better people'' than men. However women do receive lesser sentences when they murder, for instance, and are less likely to be executed in states where the death penalty exists.
See the statistics here.
Bizarrely, most liberals argue that women are still discriminated against in the justice system, and of course if they had their way nobody would be executed, except thought-criminals perhaps.
When we compare women and men in the justice system, few people question the obvious disparities; but when it comes to minorities, especially blacks, it is taboo to even consider the obvious fact that differing rates of crime among the races might be the main reason for the disparities in arrest, conviction, and sentencing.
So we go on with this absurd charade of pretending that blacks are blameless victims of racism, always sinned against and never sinning, not even capable of sin. How can any sane adult pretend to believe such foolishness? How can any judge, whose business is to administer justice, pretend that one group of people is above scrutiny?
Judges, ideally, are to be impartial, and yet what is ''political correctness'' but an all-encompassing system of partiality, of putting minority groups in a special privileged category, off-limits to criticism?
Labels: Criminal Justice System, Discrimination, Free Speech, Judicial System, Political Correctness, Racial Division, White Guilt
0 comment Tuesday, June 3, 2014 | admin
Some more (rare) good news: Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are now out of prison after having had their sentences commuted in January. They are back at home with their families, though still under 'home confinement', and barred from talking to the press until their sentence officially ends on March 20.
Ramos, Compean freed from prison
By Jerome R. Corsi
� 2009 WorldNetDaily
Convicted former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were released from federal prison this morning and are en route to join their families in El Paso, Texas.
Characterizing Ramos and Compean's incarceration as a "political prosecution," Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, called for a congressional investigation into alleged prosecutorial misconduct by El Paso U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton under the direction of Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Poe also called for an investigation into the alleged role of the Mexican government in demanding that Ramos and Compean be prosecuted.
"As soon as President Bush commuted Ramos and Compean's sentences, the Mexican government registered a large protest," Poe noted.''
I am not hopeful that there will be any investigation into the Mexican government's role in this travesty, given the present political regime. I think these men should be completely exonerated. Ramos's lawyer said on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Ramos was treated more harshly than the accused terrorists who are held at Guantanamo:
BOTSFORD: Well, Lou, Ignacio's situation was that he was assaulted when he was at the Mississippi unit, the first unit he went to. Because of that, he was put into protective custody, it was called a shoe unit. So he was locked down 23 hours a day. He's in solitary confinement.
The conditions that he suffered, suffered from during that period of time basically, you know, 22 1/2 months, are more onerous than those imposed on the detainees in Gitmo. That was instrumental, I believe, in getting the president to commute this sentence. DOBBS: David, what are the next legal steps here for Ignacio and for Jose Compean? Do they have recourse? Is there a way to set this obvious, obvious miscarriage of justice right?
BOTSFORD: Lou, I believe so. I'm not going to stop fighting until we get to the bitter end. Currently we have a petition before the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Supreme Court to review the remaining convictions that are still there after the Fifth Circuit vacated or threw out all the convictions on the obstruction of justice. I can't tell you what the Supreme Court's going to do obviously that's an uphill battle. But there are a number of legal issues that will remain after the Supreme Court has resolved the issues that are in front of that, and we will proceed back into federal district court to resolve those remaining issues, as is his right.
In another border-related story, the news is decidedly mixed. The good part is that Roger Barnett, the Arizona rancher who was being sued by a number of illegal aliens, was declared in the clear on some charges:
Jury rules rancher didn't violate migrants' rights
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages � $60,000 of which were punitive.''
I would be interested to know the composition of the jury. I think it's unjust in the extreme that he is declared liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on these brazen trespassers. I think he should countersue them; surely having hordes of criminal illegals traipsing across his property over a period of years, while the government refuses to enforce our laws, constitutes real 'emotional distress.'
Who is footing the bill for these subversive lawsuits? The legal ambulance-chasers who aggressively bring suits like this against American citizens who are exercising their right to bear arms and to defend their property and lives are enemies of the American people just as much as the illegal intruders. But the government at whatever level, federal or state, which refuses to protect citizens against these predators is just as much the enemy; they have abdicated their primary responsibility and have betrayed the people they purport to represent and serve.
Shame on all of them.
Ramos, Compean freed from prison
By Jerome R. Corsi
� 2009 WorldNetDaily
Convicted former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were released from federal prison this morning and are en route to join their families in El Paso, Texas.
Characterizing Ramos and Compean's incarceration as a "political prosecution," Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, called for a congressional investigation into alleged prosecutorial misconduct by El Paso U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton under the direction of Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Poe also called for an investigation into the alleged role of the Mexican government in demanding that Ramos and Compean be prosecuted.
"As soon as President Bush commuted Ramos and Compean's sentences, the Mexican government registered a large protest," Poe noted.''
I am not hopeful that there will be any investigation into the Mexican government's role in this travesty, given the present political regime. I think these men should be completely exonerated. Ramos's lawyer said on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Ramos was treated more harshly than the accused terrorists who are held at Guantanamo:
BOTSFORD: Well, Lou, Ignacio's situation was that he was assaulted when he was at the Mississippi unit, the first unit he went to. Because of that, he was put into protective custody, it was called a shoe unit. So he was locked down 23 hours a day. He's in solitary confinement.
The conditions that he suffered, suffered from during that period of time basically, you know, 22 1/2 months, are more onerous than those imposed on the detainees in Gitmo. That was instrumental, I believe, in getting the president to commute this sentence. DOBBS: David, what are the next legal steps here for Ignacio and for Jose Compean? Do they have recourse? Is there a way to set this obvious, obvious miscarriage of justice right?
BOTSFORD: Lou, I believe so. I'm not going to stop fighting until we get to the bitter end. Currently we have a petition before the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Supreme Court to review the remaining convictions that are still there after the Fifth Circuit vacated or threw out all the convictions on the obstruction of justice. I can't tell you what the Supreme Court's going to do obviously that's an uphill battle. But there are a number of legal issues that will remain after the Supreme Court has resolved the issues that are in front of that, and we will proceed back into federal district court to resolve those remaining issues, as is his right.
In another border-related story, the news is decidedly mixed. The good part is that Roger Barnett, the Arizona rancher who was being sued by a number of illegal aliens, was declared in the clear on some charges:
Jury rules rancher didn't violate migrants' rights
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages � $60,000 of which were punitive.''
I would be interested to know the composition of the jury. I think it's unjust in the extreme that he is declared liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on these brazen trespassers. I think he should countersue them; surely having hordes of criminal illegals traipsing across his property over a period of years, while the government refuses to enforce our laws, constitutes real 'emotional distress.'
Who is footing the bill for these subversive lawsuits? The legal ambulance-chasers who aggressively bring suits like this against American citizens who are exercising their right to bear arms and to defend their property and lives are enemies of the American people just as much as the illegal intruders. But the government at whatever level, federal or state, which refuses to protect citizens against these predators is just as much the enemy; they have abdicated their primary responsibility and have betrayed the people they purport to represent and serve.
Shame on all of them.
Labels: Anarcho-Tyranny, Border Patrol, Illegal Immigration, Judicial System, Legal System, Open Borders, Political Correctness