Reply With Quotewe're no longer a nation that is governed by a constitutionally limited government, but an oligarchy of black robed tyrants who torture definitions to create what they call 'good policy'...............
we are only left with two choices.........
Verified User
Judicial Foul Ups
Nine lawyers on the U. S. Supreme Court are not the only f–k ups. Creating an unconstitutional tax to pay for socialized medicine forever was an earthquake; nevertheless, villains abound in every court. The question is how did it happen?
My Answer: A long running Socialist/Communist conspiracy finally took control of the courts on the day they acquired the authority to put their judges on the bench for the sole purpose of ordering Americans how to behave rather than serve justice.
Mainstream media —— MAINLY TELEVISION —— is the most important component in the conspiracy.
The cruelest lies are often told in silence. Robert Louis Stevenson
A century of media silence about the Socialist/Communist conspiracy is responsible for this travesty:
A New York City judge has removed a 6-year-old girl from her mother because she did not wear a mask while dropping her off outside of the school.
In a shocking and egregious move, the court also told Dr. Epstein that in order to get short supervised visits with her child — she will have to wear a mask inside her own home.
It was a normal day for Dr. Micheline Epstein, a family physician, when she went to drop her daughter off at the Birch Wathen Lenox School on the Upper East Side last week — until her entire life was turned upside down in an instant.
The tearful mother explained in a phone call that her daughter was already inside the building and wearing a mask when the school nurse and school security attempted to force Dr. Epstein to wear a mask on the public street in front of the building where drop off takes place, Dr. Epstein refused.
“No one got physical or anything, she just refused to wear the mask. They were outside on the public sidewalk,” Dr. Epstein’s boyfriend Jeff Guttenplan explained, adding that the daughter was wearing a mask because they are required to go inside.
The mother explained that the school nurse had came out and was aggressively demanding that she put on a mask, but she was already leaving and did not accept it. “The next thing I know, my daughter is taken away from me,” she cried.
Dr. Epstein is separated from her daughter’s father and they had a shared custody agreement where the child split times between the home equally. The divorce, however, has been bitter.
Following the confrontation at the school, Dr. Epstein left, but would soon find a letter from the expensive college prep school sent to her, her estranged husband, and the attorneys for both parties. The school was demanding that Dr. Epstein was no longer permitted to drop off or pick up her child from the school.
If that wasn’t already bad enough, the father used the notice about the mask situation to request an emergency hearing for full custody — which Justice Matthew F. Cooper granted after berating the already emotionally devastated mother.
“She’s the love of my life,” Dr. Epstein told the Gateway Pundit while trying, and failing, to hold back her tears. “It’s horrible. Please help us.”
Additionally, the court decided that the mother is not permitted to remove her daughter from the expensive school — and told her that she does not have a choice in the matter. She is currently working three jobs to pay for not only her daughters expenses, but the six lawyers she hired to fight what she is referring to as the kidnapping of her child.
On Tuesday, Dr. Epstein was not permitted to see, or even speak to, her daughter — even though it was her sixth birthday.
To get two supervised visits with her daughter per week, she will need to wear a mask inside her own home.
Dr. Epstein said that those who wish to help her can email the school and the judge (mcooper@nycourts.gov) to help advocate for her. She has also launched a GiveSendGo fundraiser to help cover the mounting legal expenses.
“The only thing I want is for people to stand up already and stop with this nonsense,” Dr. Epstein said, still attempting to mask that she has been crying, but unable to contain the complete heartbreak she is feeling.
EXCLUSIVE: NYC Judge Removes 6-Year-Old From Mother Because She Didn’t Wear a Mask While Dropping Her Off at School
By Cassandra Fairbanks
Published March 16, 2021 at 4:45pm
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ng-off-school/
NOTE: The judge that ruled against Dr. Epstein is not named, nor is his or her picture shown in any of the articles I read so far.
In fact, the judge that denied Dr. Epstein her Rights is only the latest judge in a long line of judges implementing their own political agenda from the bench. I am guessing that the judge was trying to extend Fields v. Palmdale to private schools:
Parents and politicians alike were shocked when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Nov. 2 that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."
The Ninth Circuit decision in Fields v. Palmdale School District upheld the lower court's broad ruling that the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children does not encompass the right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs." A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled against the parents. One judge had been appointed by Jimmy Carter, one by Bill Clinton, and one by Lyndon B. Johnson.
The judge in this next case, nor anyone else, can prove that chemotherapy prolongs life by one minute, yet medical industry parasites after big money claim that chemotherapy prolongs a patient’s life when they live, then they claim the cancer had gone too far when the patient dies soon after taking chemotherapy. Not a one of them ever claims chemotherapy cured cancer. In short: The big money is in treatment not cure —— not to mention a never-ending supply of guinea pigs for the chemotherapy industry. And lets not forget the charity hustlers industry.
. . . a New York judge rejected the family's emergency petition to halt his daily chemotherapy treatments.
"The judge is not listening to the constitutional rights of these parents," the family's lawyer Elliot Schlissel says.
Judge Rejects Family's Emergency Petition to Halt Chemotherapy for Long Island Teen Whose Cancer Is in Remission
"It's very disturbing to me that the government has basically kidnapped my child," the boy's mother says
By Greg Cergol
Published November 19, 2018
Updated on November 20, 2018 at 2:03 pm
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...ission/548611/
NOTE: No judge or court in this country will ever rule against the Parasite Class’ tax dollar income. Even the judge in Dr. Epstien’s case was surely mindful of the education industry’s huge tax dollar income even though the Birch Wathen Lenox School is a private school.
There are a number of instance where judges imposed their political agenda on defendants. This next case included First Amendment overtures:
MINNEAPOLIS, May 15 (UPI) -- A 13-year-old Minnesota teen must undergo chemotherapy for cancer even though the treatment is against his family's beliefs, a judge ruled.
The St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press reported that Brown County District Court Judge John Rodenberg said there is overwhelming medical evidence that Daniel Hauser will most likely survive if he receives the treatment and die if he doesn't.
In his 60-page ruling Friday, the judge said officials proved "a compelling state interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override the fundamental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel to the free exercise of religion and the due process right of the parents to direct the religious and other upbringing of their child.”
Daniel and his parents have sought treatments for the boy's form of Hodgkin's lymphoma that included diet, vitamins and ionized water, stating that they belonged to the Nemenhah, a quasi-Native American spiritual group.
The judge ordered that the Hausers select an oncologist before a May 19 review of the case.
In his ruling, the judge noted that his finding might have been different if it involved someone who was older and had a greater understanding of his illness.
"This matter ... involves a 13-year-old child who has only a rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy," the judge said. "He genuinely opposes the imposition of chemotherapy. However, he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."
Judge orders chemotherapy for teen
Published: May 15, 2009 at 9:19 PM
http://www.upi. com/Top_ News/2009/05/15/Judge-orders-chemotherapy-for-teen/UPI-40061242436751/
In this next case Judge Eldridge is white, but his decision appeased non-existent racism decades before racism became the most overworked word in the media:
In an unusual decision on a legal case involving babies switched at birth, Judge Frank M. Eldridge gave custody of 8-year-old Melvin Eugene Moore to adoptive parents Eugene and Edith Moore despite the fact that the boy's biological parents, Walter and Jodie Pope, got hold of the wrong child due to a hospital mixup. The children were born just hours apart on October 7, 1983, and the switching of the babies was only known 5 years later due to blood tests taken to facilitate the Popes' divorce. The mistake should have been more obvious, however, since the boy the Popes raised was of mixed race, and the Popes were both Caucasian. The Moores, meanwhile, were surprised to have adopted a white baby despite requesting a mixed-race child since Eugene was black and Edith was white.
NOTE: ELDRIGE SHOT DOWN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM’S MYTH ABOUT RIGHTING A WRONG NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.
Judge Eldridge explained that while the Popes were the biological parents of Melvin, the Moores had vested rights as parents because they adopted and raised the boy from his infancy. Nevertheless, Jodie Pope was granted liberal visitation rites.
On the bright side of righting the wrong of slavery —— reparations took a hit, while Eldrige awarded both parties a nice piece of change.
Furthermore, the judge ruled that the Griffin-Spalding Hospital, which was responsible for the switching of babies, had to pay the Moores and Mrs. Pope $900,000.
3
Judge Rules That Children Switched at Birth Should Remain Switched (1983)
https://www.therichest.com/most-shoc...ched-at-birth/
Finally, forcing Americans to buy anything increases every judges unconstitutional authority. Honorable judges do not need it:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoye...-americans-buy
I would like to know how Hoyer squares “general welfare” with judges who can:
1. Confiscate children for every political purpose.
2. Force Americans to hand their children to hospitals for medical procedures.
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
rebel
we're no longer a nation that is governed by a constitutionally limited government, but an oligarchy of black robed tyrants who torture definitions to create what they call 'good policy'...............
we are only left with two choices.........
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
Welcome to sleepy joes America .. strap down the ride is going to get much worse. Communism in your face.
You dems wanted it - now your going to get it. Who you gonna blame??? LOL LOL LOL
LIFE IS SHORT - SMILE WHILE YOU STILL HAVE TEETH.
we must all learn to hear what we do not like - the questions is not, "is it pleasant?" but, "is it true?"
Flanders (03-17-2021)
Gone
Pure nonsense, heck a large number of Federal judges including the Supreme Court are Conservative Judges. Sorry to inform you but most Judges, either Lib or Con leaning, do not bring Politics into their rulings, yes we know the right wants it to be so, but it is Not Gonna Happen. Get over it.....Snowflakes.
Verified User
You actually read all the crap this poster pulls off of the likes of Gateway? Usually a lengthy rant anyone can hear by turning on AM RadioOriginally Posted by CASPER
Gone
Most of it, I have already seen this rant elsewhere, crap is crap no matter where it is posted. The fun ones are where one will post something like this and then you get another with exactly the same cut and paste whine, and even better they will have gotten it from two different sources, it is like a chain letter, pass it on or you get bad luck...ROTFLMAO!
Verified User
To CASPER: This fabulously informative piece about High Court justices disputes your claim:
In the case of Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., which emerged from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, nobody but the parties involved cared about the issues in the case. It became noteworthy, though, because Judge Laurence Silberman used the dissent, not just to disagree with the majority’s ruling, but also to warn against the danger of a national media that is completely allied with the party controlling all of Washington D.C. However, I find the case even more exciting because it attacks the notion of Supreme Court infallibility.
The majority in the Tah case did a good job of summarizing the case and you’ll see why nobody in America was paying attention:
In this defamation action, two former Liberian officials allege that Global Witness, an international human rights organization, published a report falsely implying that they had accepted bribes in connection with the sale of an oil license for an offshore plot owned by Liberia. The district court dismissed the complaint for failing to plausibly allege actual malice. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm. The First Amendment provides broad protections for speech about public figures, and the former officials have failed to allege that Global Witness exceeded the bounds of those protections.
The Supreme Court first enunciated those “broad protections for speech about public figures” in 1964, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In brief, it held that, if a public official or political candidate wants to succeed in a defamation claim, she or she cannot merely prove the elements of a defamation cause of action (i.e., publicly disseminated defamatory statements) but must also prove that whoever made the statement acted with actual malice. “Actual malice” means knowing the statement was false or recklessly disregarding its falsity. As a result of that decision, public officials stopped suing the media, so much so that they no longer sue even when obvious actual malice is present.
Judge Silberman wrote a dissent challenging not only how the majority applied New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to the case before it but also challenging the entirety of the Supreme Court decision. It’s this last aspect that makes Silberman’s dissent noteworthy.
Silberman points out that “Justice Thomas has already persuasively demonstrated that New York Times was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law. *** As with the rest of the opinion, the actual malice requirement was simply cut from whole cloth.”
Although Silberman acknowledges the difficulty inherently in overruling “landmark” cases, he has come to see the 57-year-old New York Times opinion as “a threat to American Democracy. It must go.” And then Silberman goes into overdrive defending the Constitution.
He makes plain his disdain for Justice Kennedy’s contention that “criticism of the Court is tantamount to an attack on the Constitution.” Instead, “I readily admit that I have little regard for holdings of the Court that dress up policymaking in constitutional garb.” It’s that kind of dissimulation that is “the real attack on the Constitution.” Indeed, “[t]he notion that the Court should somehow act in a policy role as a Council of Revision is illegitimate.”
What Silberman has written is incredibly important. The Supreme Court, unlike the Pope, is not God’s representative on earth (at least for Catholics).
They think they are:
Andrea Widburg referring to the Nifty Nine as “lawyers” made my day:
It’s a collection of lawyers, with those from the left being highly politicized. These same leftist lawyers pretend that they are, in fact, infallible, making their decisions indistinguishable from the Constitution itself – and as unassailable.
What lies behind Silberman’s attacking the imaginary doctrine of Supreme Court infallibility is the Court’s 67-year history of deciding cases on purely political grounds, while pretending that the Constitution is controlling. The most famous of these cases for conservatives is Roe v. Wade which found a constitutional right to abortion hidden in the Constitution’s emanations and penumbras.
However, the same “make it up as you go along” philosophy really began with a truly righteous case: Brown v. Board of Education. There was nothing in the Constitution to bar the heinous practice of academic segregation (one that Democrats are again embracing), so the Supreme Court, to advance a moral public policy, made up constitutional law. When doing so worked, the Supreme Court was off to the races. It now makes up imaginary constitutional rights on a regular basis. Just think of the Obergefell decision, in which Kennedy wrote a romance novel to find a constitutional right to gay marriage.
On the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas clearly understands that Supreme Court infallibility is a false doctrine and Justice Alito probably does, too. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett may understand the principle. The remaining justices quite definitely do not. Until all the justices recognize that they’re merely fancy lawyers, with none having a claim to the papal throne, America will continue to fall victim to the fake constitutionality of an activist court.
(If you want to read about Silberman’s excellent attack on the unholy alliance between the media, Big Tech, and the Democrat party, I recommend Mollie Hemingway’s Twitter thread.)
March 21, 2021
A federal appellate judge challenged Supreme Court infallibility
By Andrea Widburg
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...llibility.html
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
rebel
that's the most misinformed post i've ever seen you make. 90% of all judges, Lib and Con, bring politics in to their rulings.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Gone
The Americanthinker is one of the worst far right sites out there, sorry but I am not interested in their crap, have read enough in the past to know they are not credible.
Gone
You really are wrong on an awful lot of topics, you can add this one to the list.
rebel
I get that you feel the need to be the correct one in all liberal/conservative matters, especially if you can delude yourself in to believing that i'm in the conservative part of that matter, but you are either deluded by your faith in the courts or you're squarely in the camp of stronger police power. Either way is pretty irrelevant because you're simply wrong.
at least I can officially mark you off the list for having any intelligence
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Gone
Works for me, so stop wasting your time with replies.
rebel
one of my favorite activities on here is to point out stupidity and hypocrisy. you can expect more of that from me when you're wrong. I suspect that's going to be alot.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Gone
Fine by me, just do not expect a lot of replies.
rebel
having to read less gibberish in the face of facts isn't a bad thing, in my opinionFine by me, just do not expect a lot of replies.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks