Category Archives: Judicial

Did the NYC cops at the biker beatdown have a duty to intervene? “No” says court precedents

Standard
Did the NYC cops at the biker beatdown have a duty to intervene?  “No” says court precedents

Now that we have found out that at least 5 New York City cops were at the scene where Alexian Lien was pulled from his vehicle in front of his family and beaten by a biker gang, understandable outrage has come from the public. Calls for these officers to lose there jobs, be arrested and sued have been prevalent, but will they?

While it is true that 1 cop has all ready been arrested, that was for his active participation of the beating, the fates of the other cops who just stood by and watched has yet to be determined.

Would it surprise you that legally these cops have no duty to interfere and stop a crime against an individual?

In 1856 the Supreme Court ruled in South v Maryland that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws  But that was over 150 years ago, things have surely changed since, no?

No.

The courts have ruled consistently for the past 30 years that the police are under no obligation to stop a crime and protect a person.

In July of this year the courts in New York City dismissed a lawsuit brought on by Joseph Lozito.  Lozito tackled and subdued spree murderer  Maksim Gelman after Gelman killed 4 and injured 5 while both men were on the No. 3 train pulling out of Penn Station.  Lozito’s heroics earned him a couple of stab wounds to the head requiring 22 stiches and 20 staples to close it up.

Why was Lozito suing?  Because there were two transit cops in that train car with him who didn’t intervene for the 60 seconds that he was struggling with Gelman.  Those officers waitied until the threat was subdued and Lozito immobilized the mass murderer before they calmly tapped him on the shoulder and told him “you can get up now”.

According to Manhattan judge Margaret Chan, the transit officers—who were reportedly searching for Gelman at the time—did not have an obligation to aid Lozito, as there was no evidence to suggest they knew he was in trouble. But Lozito, a father of two, says that’s not the case, and that two people—including Gelman himself—had gotten the officers’ attention, and they failed to protect both Lozito and the other people riding with him in the subway car.

I guess watching a man get stabbed for 60 seconds doesn’t constitute “trouble”.  What did the cops think, this was just boys being boys?

Then there is the DC Court of Appeals ruling in the case Warren v DC in 1981 in which the court once again stated that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way.

In this case, Carolyn Warren and her female roommate were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their third female roommate downstairs screaming as she was being raped by a pair of intruders.  The women upstairs called 911 and waited.  After 30 minutes when they saw a police car drive by and their roommates screams stopped they assumed the police had arrived and went downstairs.  The police hadn’t arrived and for the next 14 hours the three women were raped, robbed and beaten.

By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists.

Funny thing about that “special relationship” vernacular, you would think it would cover people with restraining orders or who were otherwise at risk of danger. Yet once again the courts side with the police not having any duty to actually protect a person.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock v Gonzales that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.

These are but a few cases in which the courts throughout the land have reiterated that the police do not have the duty to protect or serve YOU the individual.  It’s more like an ethereal idea of protect and serve than actually doing either.

What does this have to do with firearms?

Plenty.  The gun controllers and anti-gun zealots have long boasted about how the right to keep and bear arms is an antiquated and unnecessary relic of the past because we have the police to protect us.

Yet in reality, you can have a cop right in front of you while you are being a victim of a violent crime and they are fully allowed to legally just stand their and watch you die.

They can ignore your pleas for help and your 911 calls and even show “demonstrable abuse and ineptitude”  and still be in the clear.

Since the cops have no duty to protect us, if you don’t protect yourself, who will?

With the court ruling consistently on the side of sideline cops who just stand their and watch, chances are the 4 other police officers on the scene in New York who stood and just watched Alexian Lien beaten in front of them will not be charged or sued successfully.

I guess at the end of the day, the shield is just for their protection.  The rest of us are on our own.

Advertisements

If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

Standard
If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

Gun control zealots love to get hooked on the semantics of the 2nd Amendment.

Due to the forefathers elegant writing that is more verse than prose, gun control zealots have harped on misinterpreted syntaxes of the 2nd Amendment for years.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The gun controllers like to say that since there isn’t an “and” between State and the right of the people that somehow invalidates the intent of founders.   The intent being found in the other writings of the time.

George Mason: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Sam Adams: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”

Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed”

Thomas Paine: “Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them (arms)”

So even though the founders had just tossed out a tyrant and basically made a bill of rights that all be exclusively dealt with the aforementioned tyranny, somehow the lack of a word is supposed to undercut the intent?

If we were to extend this logic to the other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights we would have a very different country today.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

By applying gun control “logic” on the 1st Amendment we would have the right of free speech, press and assembly limited to only apply when seeking redress for grievances.  You see, everything before the petition part was an “or”.  You have this right OR this right OR this right, then you can take one of those rights AND petition the government.

Remember, this is gun control “logic”.

So, unless you are petitioning the government for redress of grievances, your right to free speech or assembly or the press or religion would be able to be restricted to the point of prohibition.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

No mention of apartments in the 3rd Amendment.  Therefore the government has the rights to shack up as many soldiers in your apartment as they want.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces

It only says land, it doesn’t say land forces therefore anyone can be held to answer for a crime without due process if it occurs on land.  Therefore the 5th Amendment only applies to crimes taken while either on an airplane or while falling off a cliff.  And since there weren’t airplanes back in the 1700’s and since gun controllers say at best we have a right to a ball and powder musket then the founding fathers meant to enumerate in the constitution a provision to protect the rights of people accused of committing crimes while falling off a cliff.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Since the it’s “and” and not “and/or” between cruel and unusual punishments the 8th Amendment allows punishments that can be either cruel or unusual so long as they are not both.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Just like the previous amendment this one has “or” instead of an “and/or” and as such allows for certain rights to be denied AND disparaged against, so long as both are done when you apply the gun controllers logic to the 9th Amendment.

By applying gun control “logic” to other amendments of the Constitution illustrates how ridiculous it is.  Yet gun control zealots still like to argue that somehow, despite the historical evidence of intent, that the founders somehow wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to the military.

But back in reality I argue that the intention of the founders was clear and clearest with regards to the 2nd Amendment.  Not only are there the writings of the day that argue for the personal keeping and bearing of arms but also the anecdotal fact that these colonists OVERTHREW A TYRANT.  They didn’t do it by not quartering soldiers, they did it by the use of arms.

They felt so strongly about it that they included in the 2nd the strongest wording they could and a phrase that is not found anywhere else in the Constitution.

Shall not be infringed

Gun owners act with class…the hateful left acts with crass

Standard
Gun owners act with class…the hateful left acts with crass

Depending on where you live, the chances are you have come across those who disagree with your choice to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.  There is also a chance you have found businesses that do not recognize your 2nd Amendment rights.

There are plenty of those of the “tolerant” left who have causes they believe in as well.

The difference between in how gun owners react to rejection and the way those of the hateful left is quite telling.

If a business is anti-gun, we as gun owners will most likely avoid it in order to support another company that believes in the 2nd Amendment.  We’ll let others in our community know that a certain business is anti-gun and may even reach out to that business to let them know that they are losing business but it doesn’t extend further than that.

Then you have the hateful left, and I’m not talking about those stooges who impotently try to boycott Starbucks

boycottstarbucks

but rather those hate mongering “tolerant” intellectuals.  Those that wish those who disagree with them to die, or their families to die are are threatening them directly with murder.

nra-threat

This kind of hateful rhetoric is not limited to the anti-gun zealots but rather to any person who dares disagree with an opinion of a hateful left member.

The most recent example of this is the vicious and continued attack by the hateful left against “Sweet Cakes By Melissa”.  What did the owners of the cake shop, Aaron and Melissa Klein, do that was so reprehensible to the hateful left?

They chose to not bake a cake for a lesbian wedding since, on religious grounds, they do not agree morally with a homosexual marriage.

While every gun owner I know and anyone who is not a member of the hateful left would have just found another place to have their cake baked and been content to know that Sweet Cakes lost business, the lesbian couple decided to sue in order to force the Klein’s to betray their own beliefs.

The courts in Oregon, being one of the west coast havens for the hateful left, ruled that the Klein’s had to invalidate their 1st Amendment right of freedom of religion and betray their religious belief in order to placate this lesbian couple.

I can only imagine if I went to a Muslim Bakery and demanded they put bacon into a cake.  Somehow I doubt the court would back me up on that in the same manner.

But on top of forcing a business owner to betray their own religious rights, the hateful left wanted to also punish the owners by threatening them until they decided to close their shop.

Threatening calls, letters promising violence and hateful posts on social media flooded the Kleins.  From proclamations that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness.

One of the tamer ones:

“You stupid bible-thumping, hypocritical b**ch. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,”

That is the tolerance of the hateful left.  You are free to believe in anything you want…so long as you completely agree with them or else they will threaten you and your family.

The Klein’s, refusing to betray their values decided to close the doors to their business and move the operation to a home-based business.  That is called conviction and I salute them for it.  I wish them all the luck and congratulate them on staying true to their beliefs in the face of the ugly and hateful response by the hateful left.

As a vocal gun owner, I have been all too familiar with death threats and just vicious hateful trash being spewed at me from the sewers the hateful left calls mouths.

It is important as a gun owner, or as any rational and reasonable human being to avoid the violence and vitriol of the hateful left and in doing so showing the contrast to an outside party of what we stand for and what the hateful left stand for.

We stand for freedom…they stand for hate mongering and groupthink.

Being Gay trumps being a Gun Owner in New Mexico

Standard
Being Gay trumps being a Gun Owner in New Mexico

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has ruled that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the law.

Long story short, private business owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin don’t agree with gay marriage and chose not to provide photography services to a lesbian couple.

According to the New Mexico Supreme Court,the case

“teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Compromise.  Funny, this doesn’t seem like a compromise but rather forcing a someone to do something they are diametrically opposed to.

The court goes on to say:

The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish, yet in the world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Doing so, Bosson said, is “the price of citizenship.”

Ok.  So the price of citizenship is being forced to run your private business in a manner you disagree with on a religious level.  Plus, the court has the hubris to actually geld the 1st Amendment by stating “you are free to say what you believe but it doesn’t matter as you have to still do as we say.”

And to liken this to Blacks being refused service in the south is a false analogy.  It would be more akin to the Ku Klux Klan hiring an all black photography studio to film a cross burning and having the courts force the studio to do it.

(and before you start with the “why would the Klan hire blacks?” talk, i don’t know what goes on in the minds of racists, maybe they’d like forcing blacks to serve them, whatever.  I mean, why didn’t the lesbian couple just find another photography studio instead of suing Elane?)

But speaking of refusing service to blacks in the south, there are civil rights abuses going on in New Mexico that line up more closely to it.

Every day over 22,000 New Mexicans have their civil rights violated by being refused service at businesses around the state by statute*.  They simply exercise their right to keep and bear arms yet are discriminated against by these businesses.  Peaceful refusal to accept this bigoted stance results in the civil rights activist facing a 4th Degree felony which carries an 18-month prison sentence and a $5000 fine.

I believe in the rights of a private business to refuse service if they so choose.  I believe they have a right to allow smoking in their establishment, to serve trans-fats and salt and wash it down with oversized beverages and in general dictate how their business is to be run.

BUT…

If the New Mexico Supreme Court is ruling that, as a business owner, “the price of citizenship” is to “compromise your beliefs” and “leave space for other Americans who believe something different” then the statute allowing the banning of firearms in private businesses must be struck down.

And the 2nd Amendment is not a choice.  I was born this way, with the right to defend myself by use of martial arms and as such it is my civil right as an American to have that protected from bigoted anti-gun business owners.

Regrettably, I can’t help but feel that the New Mexico Supreme Court picks and chooses who they believe deserve to have their civil rights protected.  But who knows, maybe this is the verdict that brings down the state backed bigotry toward gun owners in New Mexico.

 

 

*NMSA 29-19-12 C. C.   provision of authority for a private property owner to disallow the carrying of a concealed handgun on the owner’s property;

 

 

Federal Judge ruled Stop & Frisk unconstitutional. Time for a 2nd look at Terry Stops?

Standard
Federal Judge ruled Stop & Frisk unconstitutional. Time for a 2nd look at Terry Stops?

New York Despot Michael Bloomberg has taken his virulent hatred of firearms beyond just infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of his citizens and promoted a program that denies New Yorkers their 4th Amendment rights.

This program is colloquially known as “Stop and Frisk”.  Stop and Frisk gives NYPD officers the ability to stop an individual on a whim and search him.  Now, a lot of people complain that it is unfairly targeting black people.  I complain that it is unfairly targeting ANYONE.

The practice has increased 600% since Bloomberg took office.

Stop and Frisk by the numbers

Stop and Frisk basically lowers the amount of reasonable articulable suspicion needed for an officer to engage in a stop.  In fact, looking over the “justifications” on the official police form, reasonable seems to have taken a hike.

uf250front

 

Fits description?  Funny how many innocent people fit someones description about something.

Actions indicative of casing a victim or location?  Actions indicative of acting as a lookout?  Just standing around waiting for your friend pretty much gives the NYPD reason to harass you.

Suspicious bulge/object?  Phone, wallet, keys, well endowed, take your pick because apparently any of those is going to have you with your hands against the wall.

Furtive movements?  REALLY…furtive movements?  That doesn’t even take any imagination on the part of the officer to make up.  That is the EZ Pass to the rights infringing superhighway.

Fortunately, there was a federal judge who might have actually read the Bill of Rights once or twice and correctly ruled that Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional.

Bloomberg vowed to appeal the ruling.  Not surprising because Bloomberg hates not only guns but freedom and liberty of people he thinks are beneath him.  He believes that his way is the best way and you can only own what he allows, only eat what he allows, only walk the streets when he allows, only make choices that he allows.

I don’t call Bloomberg a despot because he is anti-gun…he is anti-gun because he is a despot and a fanatical hater of liberty.

But I digress.  With this blow against Bloomberg’s tyranny perhaps it is about time the courts took another swing at “Stop and ID” laws and Terry Stops.

The first is much like Stop and Frisk.  An officer, with little reason beyond just wanting to, can stop you on the street and demand to see your papers.  Very Berlin circa 1938.  We’re not talking about trying to vote, or drive a car or board a plane or anything other than simply existing in the world.  You shouldn’t need to justify or prove your existence to an officer on his whims.

The latter, for those of you who may be unfamiliar, is called a Terry Stop named after the case Terry v Ohio in 1968 that pretty much opened the door for the gutting of the 4th Amendment.

Terry states that is it not unconstitutional to stop and frisk someone if there is reasonable articulable suspicion that said person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”

This is what happens when you start to make exceptions to rights.  When you start to chip away at the Bill of Rights, it reverberates throughout the years.  Once the crack forms a rivulet of water can crumble the greatest mountain.  And so has Terry been that crack that has led us to a dystopian present which finds New York a modern version of Berlin 1938, where Jews are replaced by Blacks and subject to the mad ideas of another tyrant.

As a gun owner I have been subject to a terry stop a time or two simply for being armed.  Not being armed in a restricted place or any other way illegally mind you…just simply being armed and as such RAS was inflated in order to justify seeing what else I had on me.

I can assure you, it is not enjoyable to be helpless to a modern day Gestapo who, by violating your rights, dehumanize you and make you feel less than free.

We need to rein in police “discretion” on who they think might be on the way to maybe planning a crime.  This isn’t Minority Report.

In reaffirming the 4th Amendment by striking down Terry Stops and all other “show me your papers” infringements, we also strengthen the right to keep and bear arms by not being victimized by police simply because they feel like it.

After all…a rising tide lifts all boats.

It is time for liberty to rise again.

 

I guess having to shoot someone who looks like the President’s pretend son means you face double jeopardy

Standard
I guess having to shoot someone who looks like the President’s pretend son means you face double jeopardy

I wanted the weekend to see where things were going to shake out with the whole Zimmerman not-guilty verdict.  As you may know if you are a regular follower of this blog that I believe that Zimmerman acted within the constraints of the law when he shot an aggressor who was trying to murder him.

Whether the events that led to that moment were of the best choosing, I withhold judgment one way or the other.  But, I do not believe Zimmerman threw the first punch and I do believe that he had one two choices when he was pinned to the ground, either get beaten to death or shoot.

A jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges despite the best efforts of a Judge who was completely in the tank for the prosecution as well as pressure from DC in the form of the Department of Justice rallying people against George Zimmerman.

Think about for a moment.  The Department of JUSTICE facilitated mob rule in order to swing public opinion in a trial that was still in process.  Justice may be blind but apparently the DOJ can still see colors.

Which brings us to Obama and his flunkies “respecting the jury’s verdict” by pushing to retry George Zimmerman.  I guess when you don’t like the result and banked a lot of political capital on lynching the Latino kid because the guy assaulting him “looked like your hypothetical son” respect for double jeopardy and the constitution in general takes a hike.

But then again, is anyone surprised at this point that Obama uses the Constitution to wipe his own ass?

Obama and his cabal of race baiting sycophants are mulling whether to try Zimmerman again for the same crime with different wording.  Saying that, even though the jury acquitted him of 2nd Degree murder (the one that specifically means that his acts were imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life) somehow Martin’s civil rights were violated because Zimmerman is a racist.

Double Jeopardy is supposed to protect us from EXACTLY this type of thing.  Because make no mistake, this is simply the powers that be not liking a verdict and wanting to try again until they get the conviction they crave.

Here’s what a petition from the NAACP had to say as they implores the Justice Department to act:

“Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act” 

That cannot be read any other way than to mean, “We didn’t like the outcome, keep trying him again until he’s guilty”.

I mean, this is middle east dictatorship type action here.  At what point does the legal system just completely become a dog and pony show with the outcome predetermined and the only question is how many trials it will take to get there?

Fortunately for Zimmerman, with being found not guilty he at least won’t have to fear a civil suit from the Martin family as the “Stand your ground law” gives him immunity with regards to paying damages through a civil suit. But that doesn’t mean he won’t be bankrupt by a malicious federal civil rights case.

If anyone should be suing and seeking a civil trial it is George Zimmerman.  After watching the circus of a trial that the prosecution presented, in which 80 percent of their witnesses were vouching for Zimmerman, it seems clear that this is a case of malicious prosecution brought on by political pressures and as such Zimmerman should be reimbursed for his legal fees and HIS civil rights being violated.

The taxpayers may all ready be on the hook for his legal fees (thank Obama) but this whole trial was a political farce and Zimmerman was the victim of it.  As such he should seek to have the time that was wasted and the stress that was placed on him justly compensated.

And let’s not forget the NBC selectively altering the 911 tape completely taking what he said out of context to make Zimmerman look like a racist.

Perhaps that is asking too much though.  With a media who all ready had him strung up before he was even arrested, a President who basically said Zimmerman murdered his son, a Justice department who will circumvent justice in order to get their way and a myriad of race baiters who propagate the myth this had anything to do with race…is this still America?

I won’t even get into the hypocrisy of what if Zimmerman was black and Martin was Latino.  See, I would still be on the side of Zimmerman because he was being beaten to death.  The NAACP, Obama, Holder et al would be on his side then because he was black.

Pathetic really.

I guess the caveat here for gun owners is that if you find yourself being beaten to death (or any life or death situation where you have to shoot) and you have to shoot…hope that the perpetrator isn’t black.  In the Obamanation Justice isn’t blind…it sees color just fine, facts and truth be damned.

And I still stand by my theory that if George Zimmerman went by Jorge Mesa, this story is covered by NO ONE.  Thanks race baiting media.

Don’t count on the courts to uphold the 2nd Amendment

Standard
Don’t count on the courts to uphold the 2nd Amendment

Often times I hear believers in the 2nd Amendment too easily scoff off defeats in elections, legislation or trials in lower courts saying, “it’s Constitutional so eventually the courts will rule in my/our favor”.

Much like using deadly force is a last resort, so too should we begin to understand that the court system should be a last resort as well.  Believers in the 2nd Amendment should work hard and fervently in getting candidates who actual believe in what the 2nd stands for elected so that they can put forth pro-gun legislation that expands and strengthens the 2nd Amendment.

We should work hard to elect executives that appoint judges that actually believe AND  understand what the 2nd Amendment is and take to heart what “shall not be infringed” is talking about.

We need to hustle and get out for the small elections in order to elect sheriffs and lower court judges who will not turn their back on the 2nd Amendment.  A pro-gun decision from a lower court is easier to keep than an anti-gun decision is to reverse.

To summarize, the courts should not be the go-to and only course in order to protect the 2nd Amendment.  It should be like the emergency fire hose in a building which reads “Break Glass and Use in Case of Emergency”.

Why this sudden unwariness in the courts you ask?  Simple really.  Judges are people and more often it seems that they are letting politics and their own biases shade the constitutionality of things that should be obvious.

Think about it.  4 supreme court justices DON’T BELIEVE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT as it relates to an individuals right to keep and bear arms.  We were one vote away in Heller from having a government freely able steal our failsafe of freedom.

But even more recently, the court system has been failing not only the 2nd Amendment but liberty itself.

In Mississippi, Liberal hack Circuit Judge Winston Kidd conspired with the DA of Hinds county, Robert Smith, to circumvent the will of the people.  Smith waited until the last possible moment in order to file a suit trying to block the law from being enacted and Kidd was a willing participant in the rouse, placing the injunction Friday night, stopping the law from taking effect the following Monday.

Now, this is the point in the dog and pony show where many of my fellow 2nd Amendment advocates like to point out and say, “don’t worry, this is just one rogue judge and the MS Supreme Court will straighten this out”.

Yeah…they straightened it out.  In a show of judicial cowardice that has been on the rise lately, the MS Supreme Court refused to block the injunction for a  “procedural” reason.

The three justices on the Supreme Court panel stated that the court:

“expresses no opinion respecting the merits of the matters pending before the circuit court.”

The Mississippi Supreme Court, who is supposed to uphold and protect the Constitution from activist and revisionist judges opted not to have an opinion.  Their inaction thus deprives the citizens of Mississippi their constitutional right.

Perhaps the Mississippi Surpeme Court was only taking a page out of the US Supreme Court’s playbook.  It seems the Roberts Court has grown fond of judicial cowardice.

Recent examples include the sign-off on Obamacare via a loophole.  The majority of Justices ruled that the unconstitutional personal mandate was in fact a constitutional tax.  The court thereby passed the buck on and refused to rule on whether forcing a US citizen to buy something just for being alive was unconstitutional.

Before that, the ruling of Heller itself was a lukewarm wishy washy decision leaving open what “reasonable” gun control measures could possibly be when you have an amendment that states of itself that “it shall not be infringed”.

Then we have the decision last week.  Not DOMA, right or wrong they at least made a decision there and they may have inadvertently helped the 2nd Amendment by it.  I’m talking about their “ruling” on Prop 8.

For those of you who don’t know, Proposition 8 was a legally and lawfully executed ballot measure that the voters of California voted on banning gay marriage.  The opponents of Prop 8 didn’t like the outcome at the polls and as such sued to have it blocked.

Governor Brown and State Attorney General Harris also didn’t like Prop 8 so they REFUSED to defend it.  A liberal court then easily blocked Prop 8 from taking effect.  Since Brown and Harris refused to fight for and appeal the arbitrary decision that disenfranchised MILLIONS of legally cast votes, the official sponsors of Prop 8 took it upon themselves to appeal.

They appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Once again, Roberts Court decided to show cowardice rather than make a ruling.  Robert’s Court decided that the official sponsors of Prop 8 did not have standing to appeal the lower courts ruling.  Basically, the Supreme Court sidestepped the need to make a ruling by stating that they plaintiff’s didn’t have the right to appeal.

So in California, 7,001,084 peoples votes were invalidated and their ability for judicial redress denied because their Governor and State Attorney General disagrees with them.  And the US Supreme Court is ok with that.

Of all the cowardice and half measures and loopholes that the current Supreme Court has shown in recent years, the ruling on Prop 8 is the most damning.  It basically allows for the invalidation of the people’s will based on one or two peoples biases.

Why even have ballot initiatives in the first place if there is no recourse when the executive branch of the state will just say “no” if he doesn’t like the outcome?

This is the problem with banking on the Courts to fairly and correctly interpret and enforce the US Constitution.  When you bank all your hopes on a court filled with ignorance and cowardice, you can never be certain how it will end up.  But once they rule…there are no do overs.