Connect with us

Guest Columnists

Opinion | There are three types of judges

Win Johnson

Published

on

By Win Johnson
Contributed

In light of the recent resignation announcement of Alabama Supreme Court Justice Glenn Murdock and the pending appointment of a new Justice by Governor Ivey, I present this statement on the 3 types of judges. This writing begins tongue-in-cheek, but it ends deadly serious.

I was driving this morning, when a State Trooper pulled me over and said, “You weren’t driving the speed limit.”

I said, “I was doing 65 mph in a 70 mph zone, Officer.”

He said, “That’s too slow. The number on the speed limit sign is the minimum speed.”

Advertisement

“But that’s never been the case in my experience, Officer.”

“Well, you understand that I’m the one who enforces the law, right? So, I want to see you speeding up when you leave here. Here’s your ticket.”

So, I continued up the interstate and drove over 70 mph. I’d been driving a while, when this same Officer decided to pull me over again. He told me that I was going over the speed limit. When I protested that he had just told me that I was driving too slow earlier and that the number on the sign was the minimum speed, he said, “Well, I now interpret the sign differently. It’s the maximum speed.” So he gave me a ticket. When I told him that I’d like to give back to him the first ticket, he said, “Oh no, that was the law as I interpreted it back then. You’ve got to pay both.”

You recognize that story as a joke, but that’s how our judicial system works in this time, a time devoted to change, not to the law. When change becomes the foundation for law instead of stability, that is what the judges do – change the law. Law is, by definition, stable, predictable. In a time devoted to change, change becomes more important than a stable, predictable legal system, more important than the law itself. God’s law never changes. Departure from that law will always result in a system of change, change that fits man’s sinful desires instead of justice and predictability.

I have some questions for you to place my position on types of judges in context. If a policeman were to pull you over for speeding and demand that you perform a sexual act for that policeman, would you do it? If not, why would you defy a person whom we call “the law?” Would it be because that officer has gone beyond his authority? What if the mayor of Montgomery, AL ordered the taxation of the businesses in Decatur, AL and sent police officers to collect those tax dollars from those businesses? If you were a Decatur business, would you pay the tax? If not, why not? The mayor went beyond his authority? If we’re that clear on where the authority of those officials ends, why not judges.

Today, we have judges serving who in certain, important cases – important to them – have no intention of remaining faithful to the law or the Constitution. They are in the highest places of authority. They are conscienceless and are perfectly willing to violate and defy the Constitution, the law of man, the law of God, even the Judiciary’s own principles of interpretation, originally developed in order to keep the Judiciary from overstepping its boundaries. We are not waiting for the undermining of our constitutional republic. It is already upon us. We are living in a day of tyranny, perhaps a “soft” tyranny, but a tyranny that could become quite hard under the right circumstances.

So what are the three types of judges in our day? (By the way, this writing is in no way meant to reflect negatively upon the career of Justice Glenn Murdock, a dependable Judge whom I know personally and whom I know sought to faithfully follow the Constitution and the rule of law).

There is the liberal judge, who is really no judge at all. This judge simply is waiting for the opportunity to be a legislator. He or she may be a faithful judge in every case until they get to the one they consider so important that they must violate their oath to change the law, to make it in their own image. This is the day they were waiting for – the chance to make their mark, to impress their colleagues, to be feted at parties and written about in law reviews. They may use colorful, creative, even ingenius language in their opinions, but it is all a front to impose their will, their belief, their religion, their perspective, their philosophy on the rest of us.

There is the conservative judge, hopefully an originalist. This judge wants to be faithful to the law, the Constitution, so he or she reads and interprets it as it was originally intended to be interpreted. This judge also recognizes the importance of precedent to the stability of any legal system. This judge believes in the consistent treatment of cases that are similar in law and facts, so this judge follows precedent. The original intent of following precedent was to ensure that justice was consistent, that one party was not treated differently from another because a different judge heard that party’s case at a later time. However, in our day when unfaithfulness to the oath and perversion of the law has become so prevalent – even common – the conservative judge’s commitment to precedent actually makes him or her an accomplice to the crime of undermining our constitutional system of law and justice. And the conservative judge thinks it’s just “unseemly” to make a fuss about another judge’s errant ruling; it makes the entire system appear bad. Never mind the fact that the system is, in fact, bad and getting worse. Precedent has become a lever for changing the law, not keeping it consistent. Following precedent is how liberal judges count on the conservative judges to continue their legacy of perversion of the law and Constitution. The liberal judge turns things upside down, and the conservative judge doesn’t even notice that he’s not flying right side up. That’s how pilots crash at night and in bad weather. They lose their orientation to up and down.

Then there is the Reformational judge. This judge understands what the law is, what the law should be, the limits to a judge’s authority, and points the way back to the true standard, the plumbline governing right & justice for the people, the judicial system, and the entire society. When faced with another judge’s ultra vires (outside-authority) precedent, a presumption to an authority which that judge does not have, the Reformational judge does not follow. There exists no collegial respect, principle of the rule of law, nor constitutional requirement that one judge must follow another judge in that rogue judge’s lawless, presumptuous, personal adoption of judicial tyranny.

– To allege otherwise is to assert that every judge is a sheep, not an official with the discretion, wisdom, and judgment to understand and apply the law that is, but is bound by law to follow the wolves, who would undermine and destroy the very Constitution they claim to uphold.

– To allege otherwise is to assert that every judge is bound by law to become as lawless as the lowest, most reprehensible, oath-breaking judge in the system.

– To allege otherwise is to assert that one public official, a rogue judge, can dictate to a free, democratic people and every other public official, bound by oath to defend and protect the Republic and its Constitution, and command the destruction of the very system meant to protect that people, that Republic, and that Constitution.

In other words, it is a proposition so absurd, so virulently destructive to the rule of law, that one can append the label “traitor” to anyone promoting it. Yet only the reformational judge will oppose it. The reformational judge uses all the power at his or her disposal to oppose such judges, for such judges use the Constitution to destroy the Constitution.

– Rogue judges take an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, yet they become the Constitution’s enemy.

– Rogue judges pretend to follow and promote the Constitution as a “living” document only that they may kill it.

– Rogue judges write long, wordy opinions that mount up to the heavens in majestic language, yet they would use their opinions to pull God Himself from His throne, if they could just come up with the correct, scholarly wording for an opinion proposing it.

Yet, that proposition, my friends, sums up one of the core articles of faith of the present legal system of this country. Every judge, state and federal, must follow the precedent issued by a “higher” court, as if the judicial system were some type of military organization with a strict chain of command. And the highest court of the land, the US Supreme Court, has such power in its opinions that it could – by a vote of 5 to 4 – command the entire nullification of the US Constitution, as long as the opinion could be carefully written to conceal its effect, was “intellectually” defensible, and if a majority of the legal community agreed.

In other words, we are presently living under the rule of lawyers and judges. And not lawyers and judges bound by law, but lawyers and judges unbound from the law, asserting that change is all that matters. For them, no God has issued eternal decrees of right and justice. And no future generation can be bound by the words of men living over 200 years before, i.e., the framers of the Constitution. No law of man or God stops them. For them, only man given to change exists. His purpose? To change the law to fit his particular tastes at the time. And to them, the people are mere sheep, worthless for anything but for tricking into the belief that they actually live in a democratic republic buttressed by the “rule of law.” Their vote is worthless, for they are ignorant sheep. No, bigoted, hateful sheep to whom the legal elite pronounce their law, their new morality, and their new religion – “Whatever We Say the Law Is, That’s What It Is. If you don’t agree, you’re evil.”

For some strange reason, the conservative judge doesn’t think there exists an authority for undoing or reversing such perverse precedent. The liberal judge is all in favor of such change. But the reformational judge finds and adopts every means within his or her power to stop such destruction of the rule of law and calls out the underminers. The reformational judge may be just one, but that one could influence thousands. And if not in that judge’s day, perhaps that judge can lay the foundation for a future generation to rise up and shake off the chains of tyranny and return to the rule of law. A return to truth and integrity in the judiciary.

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | Alabama’s native son: E Pluribus Unum

John W. Giles

Published

on

All of us are called upon to lend our name for a job referral, political appointment or the endorsement of a candidate. Over time, my engagement for this kind of request is limited and almost extinct. I can count on two or three fingers those I would fall on the sword for because of their indisputable character, dignity, integrity, humility, sense of duty and honor. I only hope I can do justice in this article about one of Alabama’s great native sons who carried our economic, social, moral and constitutional values to Washington, D.C.

For approximately forty three years, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (Jeff Sessions) has served our state and nation in many capacities. I believe history will be very kind to this great statesman who served our state and nation flawlessly. In the public square, we may call him Senator or Attorney General, but back home, we all know him as Jeff.

Jeff’s noble track record dates back when earning the Distinguished Eagle Scout recognition. Jeff went to high school at Wilcox County High School, earned a B.A. at Huntington College and then earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Alabama Law School in 1973. He also served in the Army Reserve in the 1970’s; with the rank of captain. His public service began as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the southern district of Alabama in 1975. In 1981, President Reagan tapped Jeff to be U.S. Attorney for the same district, he was Senate confirmed and served in that capacity for twelve years until President Clinton was elected and appointed one of his own. Reagan also appointed Jeff for the Federal bench in 1986, but that nomination failed due to the mounting resistance from liberal groups like the NAACP, ACLU and People for the American Way. Their logic of resistance was incomprehensible and certainly not worth noting.

I met Jeff in 1993, over twenty five years ago, when I was running for Lt. Governor and he was running for Alabama Attorney General against incumbent Jimmy Evans. You get to know someone pretty well after spending a year on the road together at events and forums. I did not make it through the primary, but enjoyed being a surrogate speaker for Jeff and Governor James during the summer. Jeff defeated Evans and asked me and a dozen or so folks to serve on his 1994 AG Transition Team. In 1996, many of us supported the idea of Jeff running for U.S. Senate. He was elected and served until February 8, 2017, when confirmed to be U.S. Attorney General appointed by President Trump. He served until November 7, 2018.

I firmly believe Trump was wrong about Jeff, and while I support his reelection in 2020, I took issue with his treatment of Jeff in an editorial I wrote: “Trump, Sessions and the woodshed.” Jeff did call me one night this past August to catch up. In our conversation, Jeff, in his unrehearsed, professional and gentlemanly manner; never mentioned one whiff about the public attacks from Trump and mockery in the media, nor did I push him. He was a complete southern gentleman as we all know him to be. Trump does not know Jeff like we all do back home; and it hurt deep to see our warrior and friend’s unmerited public lashing and maligned by Trump. Jeff was swimming in shark infested waters at the DOJ and given time, he would have delivered.

Advertisement

Trump made it as a billionaire so he does not need my advice, but the exhaustive list of turnovers of high level professionals in the Trump administration is setting a pace competitive with the Talladega 500. The West Wing door of the White House might need the same revolving door installed at Trump Towers in New York. It appears Trump does listen at times and takes all counsel under advisement before making decisions on big issues; personally I do not think he does well unless you are a 100 percent, “Yes Man.” I have been in business, industry and government over the years and a high turnover within any organization is a systemic problem that is historically derived from a hand full of reasons.

There are several in the pit stop revving up their engines to run for the coveted post of U.S. Senate against ole one-third-term Jones. By the way, Doug needs to come back home and head up the George Soros Alabama get out the vote effort, become a lawyer for the ACLU or maybe raise money for the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the name of full disclosure; when Governor Ivey called the Special Election, I enthusiastically served as chairman of Proven Conservative Super – PAC that endorsed Chief Justice Roy Moore for U.S. Senate. Jeff sacrificially gave up his seat to be the U.S. Attorney General and in my view, if he wants it back, the eager GOP contenders for this seat should unanimously step aside and roll out the red carpet path back to the Potomac River for Jeff.

Embedded in the Great Seal of the U.S. Senate is E Pluribus Unum. In 1782, congress adopted the Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, meaning “out of many, one” for our Great Seal. Think about the power of unity in that slogan. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III if you choose to re-engage for your old seat back, in my view, you would consummate in the flesh, “out of many, one.”

Alabama Loves Jeff Sessions.

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | More fake news from Alabama Policy Institute

Larry Lee

Published

on

The Montgomery County board of education passed a resolution in October calling for the repeal of the Alabama Accountability Act.

I was on the board that did this, I wrote much of the resolution and I voted for it.

So, I was more than a little surprised when I read a recent article by Rachel Bryars of the Alabama Policy Institute telling me why I did what I did and how I was intent on hurting needy children.

The article was titled: School boards are choosing systems over students by calling for scholarship repeal.

This title is totally inaccurate, as is most of her following article.

Advertisement

To be correct, it should have said something like: Schools boards are looking out for students in their system instead those in private schools.

Every school board member takes an oath that they will do all they can to help their system and its students. But apparently Ms. Bryars thinks oaths are to be forgotten.

API is a huge supporter of the accountability act. The one that diverts money from the state Education Trust Fund to give scholarships so students can attend private schools.

Montgomery is one of four systems to pass such a resolution. The others are Mobile, Baldwin and Tallapoosa counties.

Ms. Bryars would have you believe that these four systems have all the funding they need and are being cold-hearted by calling for money to stop being diverted.

That is laughable.

So immediately after reading her article I sent Ms. Bryars an email inviting her to come visit some public schools in Montgomery and see for herself. Told her I would be glad to arrange her visit.

Got no response.

I would take her to visit some science teachers who can’t remember the last time they got new textbooks, would take her to the present home of our magnet performing arts high school that is crammed into an abandoned elementary school because their school burned down a few months ago.

Would take her to another magnet school that is housed in a building constructed in 1910, and would take her to see Curtis Black, the principal at Goodwyn Middle School who got 300 new students back in August and has them crammed into every nook and cranny he can find.

Would also suggest she take a look at the national website, DonorsChoose, where teachers around the country show projects they need funding for. There are presently 38 projects listed by Montgomery teachers. Guess they don’t know their system has more money than it can use.

As to the contention that this system is not looking out for children, figures from the state department of education show there are now 16,202 students in this system on free or reduced lunches.

Anyone who knows anything about education know these are our most at-risk students.
Ms. Bryars must think we have zero obligation to these children. That we should say it is OK to take money that might be used to boost their education and give it to private schools instead?

And how did API determine MPS is flush with cash? Because we have had an increase in funding since 2008. However, they fail to point out that 2008 was the high-water mark for education funding in Alabama and funding today is less than it was ten years ago.

Schools in Alabama need all the help they can get. We certainly don’t need the kind of falsehoods and half-truths the Alabama Policy Institute insists on peddling.

 

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | Progressives push to limit your steaks and burgers in “War on Beef”

Jim Zeigler

Published

on

I am naming the newest attempt to control your life the “War on Beef.”

To me, this newest meddling in other people’s lives is proof positive that the international environmental agenda is more about controlling people than about avoiding environmental damage.

It is almost unbelievable. Progressives have decided that cows damage the environment. Ten years ago, they complained about cow flatulence – cows passing gas, thereby damaging the ozone layer. Now, it is a broader condemnation of cows. They have decided that cows are “greenhouse-gas-intensive.” Consumption of beef must drop drastically to avoid an environmental catastrophe.

So-called progressives want you to stop enjoying your steaks and hamburgers. Instead, they want you to:

  • Eat ”bleeding burgers” with no meat. Why they name it this is as mysterious as their agenda. “Bleeding”?
  • Eat blended burgers with only about 1/3 meat.
  • Switch to pork and chicken. I suppose pigs and chickens do not have as much flatulence and other effects on the atmosphere as cows, but I wonder who personally tested for this.
  • Eat veggie burgers. How that is different from their “bleeding burgers” remains a mystery.
  • Eat bug burgers. No, this is not a joke.
  • Eat mealworm burgers.
  • Eat in vitro meat burgers from cows artificially grown in labs. (I guess cows do not pass gas indoors.) With artificial insemination of cows, they also eliminate the need for bulls, further protecting the environment.

Be on the lookout for attempts to put an environmental charge or tax on beef. Be on the lookout for international agreements similar to the Paris Accords requiring signatory nations to limit their consumption of beef.

Advertisement

I have no problem with individuals who want to alter their own diets for environmental reasons – or whatever reasons. That is each individual’s choice. But the activists do not stop with their own behaviors. They want the government to enforce their dietary restrictions on us all.

When they started a War on Beef, they “went to meddling.”

God put cows on earth for a reason – for the use and enjoyment of mankind, including beef and milk. When you say this using the God word, progressives’ heads explode. So let me restate in a way that progressives can better understand: Mother Nature put cows on earth for a reason – for the use and enjoyment of mankind, including beef and milk. (With some progressives, you cannot talk in terms of God doing anything. But saying “Mother Nature” did it is apparently okay.)

Think this is a false alarm? Think that a cow tax and beef credits cannot advance like carbon taxes and credits? Read this article in which CNN (naturally) explains the War on Beef in all positive terms — as if it is reasonable, thoughtful, and is here, now. Not later.

How far will you go to reduce your beef intake?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/09/health/beef-burger-alternatives/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Famp.cnn.com%2Fcnn%2F2018%2F12%2F09%2Fhealth%2Fbeef-burger-alternatives%2Findex.html%3F__twitter_impression%3Dtrue

Scientists say that beef consumption must fall drastically to avert a climate catastrophe, but changing diet can…

I am not buying it. I am buying my steaks and burgers. And milk. CNN and the progressives did not talk as much about limiting milk. If you are going after cows, you are also fighting the major source of milk.
I refuse to cooperate with the War on Beef.

I have coined a slogan, maybe even a song, for the people’s battle to save beef:

When they’re runnin’ down ol’ Bessie,
They’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me.

 

Continue Reading

Guest Columnists

Opinion | Now, a Medicaid program built around families and communities

Greg Reed

Published

on

The elections of November 6th are over, and now, in Washington and in Montgomery legislators again take up the task of governing. As the leader of Alabama’s twenty-seven Republican state senators, my focus is on working with other lawmakers and Governor Kay Ivey to make state government more efficient and to keep job growth strong.

Reforming the state’s Medicaid program is one of the toughest challenges we face in the coming year. Medicaid, the federally-mandated health insurance program for pregnant women, children, low-income adults, the elderly, and the disabled, is by far the largest line item in the state’s General Fund — Medicaid by itself accounts for 37% of all non-education state spending and its budget for the current year is $755 million. For context, state prisons consume 23% and the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (state troopers) uses 2.5% of non-education spending.

The aging of America’s population as the Baby Boomers retire puts enormous stress on government-run health insurance programs like Medicaid. About 10,000 Boomers retire every day, and the U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2035, the number of adults aged 65 and older in America will outstrip the number of children under the age of 18. In Alabama, the population of folks aged 65 and older is expected to grow by 25% between now and 2025. This coming demographic tidal wave threatens to swamp a number of government programs, including Medicaid.

For the past five years, I have worked with Medicaid Commissioner Stephanie Azar to craft a new health care model that better serves the growing number of senior citizens in Alabama who are in Medicaid’s long-term care. Thankfully, this year Alabama received approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Washington to move ahead with the Integrated Care Network (ICN). This reform will offer senior citizens on Medicaid additional health care choices and is projected to save, over the long run, tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Here is how the ICN will work: in October of this year, the state Medicaid agency partnered with an Alabama health care provider that will now serve the medical needs of the 23,000 senior citizens who are receiving Medicaid’s long-term care services, 70% of whom are in nursing homes. By partnering with an expert health care provider based in Alabama, Medicaid can offer its long-term patients better care — and thus allow more Medicaid recipients to stay longer in the comfort of their own home.

Advertisement

Medicaid recipients can still opt for a nursing home, and no benefits are changed under this new system. But by partnering with a health care provider that is an expert in managed care, Medicaid can bend the cost curve down, offer improved health care, and give more of Alabama’s senior citizens an opportunity to stay a little longer in their homes and communities.

For my wife and me, one of the greatest privileges in life is spending time with our parents — and as the years have passed, we, like so many Alabama families, have discussed the future and begun to plan for the day when our parents will need additional help. As a legislator, I think often about how the policies that I vote on will affect the lives of my friends and neighbors. The Integrated Care Network is just getting started, but I am optimistic that this reform will improve the quality of life for many families in Alabama and put Medicaid on a sounder financial footing.

Greg Reed, R-Jasper, is the Alabama Senate Majority Leader and represents Senate District 5, which is comprised of all or parts of Winston, Walker, Tuscaloosa, Jefferson, and Fayette counties.

Continue Reading

Authors

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Opinion | There are three types of judges

by Win Johnson Read Time: 9 min
0