Judicial Boundaries Need to be Imposed

By Rich Kozlovich

The Supreme Soviet of Minnesota, aka, the Minnesota Supreme Court, has decided the interior of your car is a “public place if it is driven on public roads."  Okay, if that's a valid interpretation of the Fourth Amendment against "unreasonable search and seizures by the government", then perhaps the government should be allowed to search any private property without a warrant that borders on public streets, calling that property "public space"?  Or perhaps your wallet, a suitcase, a briefcase, or anything you're carrying on while walking on a public sidewalk next to a public street should also be considered "public space"?  Right?

How does this kind of insanity become policy?  How can any American jurist believe such nonsense?  How does judicial corruption such as this infest the thinking of America's judiciary? 

I’ve been organizing my draft files and came across this piece written by Andrea Widburg in 2023, America’s top law schools are openly abandoning the Constitution.  While academia has become a festering sore on the body America, academia’s law schools are a cancer. These institutions have abandoned the rule of law and openly support rule by judicial tyranny, and this is the time for a constitutional confrontation with the judiciary.

The Constitution says it’s the Congress who decides the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, and it’s time they exercised that power. Furthermore, there needs to be sanctions on jurists who exceeded their authority and twist logic and reality like a pretzel to fit their vision of how the world should work. And that sanction should be the ability to fire them, and not with things like a two thirds vote (67 Senators) in support of impeachment, which is now unattainable in the Senate. 

It's time Congress stops sitting with the thumbs and pass legislation that creates punishments for radical out of control judges.  They may have lifetime appointments, but I don't see anything in the Constitution that prevents the Congress from imposing penalties for conduct where the judiciary exceeds their jurisdiction.  And again....it's the Congress that determines their jurisdiction, not the judiciary.

The English Barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta saying there had to be limits to his power. Congress needs a Magna Carta for the judiciary, i.e., a Constitutional Amendment for term limits, and that amendment needs to define the boundaries of the federal judiciary's authority. Term limits and the definition of the power of SCOTUS was a failure on the part of the Founding Fathers which needs fixing.

Minnesota is just a symptom of a national chronic infection in the judiciary, but not only in the United States.  When it comes to making judgements against Trump's policies, it seems to be an international infection.

Remarkable, perhaps he didn't get the memo.  Joe Biden isn't President any longer, and this judge has no say in the matter, just like so many of these judges in the United States that think they are going to determine policy for the federal government.  And that includes this foreign born Muslim who Biden appointed as a Federal District judge, says Trump has not complied with his ruling on Trump's suspension of foreign aid saying:

“The Court was not inviting Defendants to continue the suspension while they reviewed contracts and legal authorities to come up with a new, post-hoc rationalization for the en masse suspension.........” 

This judge has ordered the resumption of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid all over the world, way beyond his judicial authority, and the administration has appealed his ruling.  It seems to me that alone should obviate his decisions until the case has run it's course.  

It appears an Egyptian judge has decided he will determine American policy, and has ordered Trump to unfreeze aid to Egypt!    The latest good news is SCOTUS has temporarily blocked this lunatic's order, and it's time for SCOTUS to stop sitting on their hands and bring this to a screeching halt.... permanently!  

All these leftist Anti-American judge's rulings are a part of a national effort by leftists to handcuff the President, and those he appoints from doing their Constitutionally mandated jobs, forcing the administration to waste money, and preventing the administration from seeing where that money is going and to whom.  These arrogant misfit judges need to be told to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  

Perhaps the President needs to send an official letter, signed by as many members of Congress as are willing, telling SCOTUS and each and every federal judge these rulings are out of bounds, they're out of control, and any further rulings inappropriately interfering with Executive privileges and responsibilities will be considered a seditious effort to undermine the boundaries created in the Constitution between the three branches of government, and action will be taken.  

It's time for a Constitutional confrontation.

"A Stranger in Town", 1943

By Rich Kozlovich 

Editor's Note:  Some articles are timeless.  This is one of them.  I linked this June, 8, 2021 article in my August 31st P&D and The Week That Was, and it's being hit.  Truth be told, given what's going on I decided to republished it.  And I think I will more often. As I said, it's timeless, the patterns of life repeat over and over again,  people will always be people, corruption is the offspring of power, and if that power goes unchecked, then the true child of power emerges, tyranny!   RK 

One of the nice things about all these internet movie channels is (in spite of the crap there) there are so many of the great movies of the past, and even "B", or "Second Tier" movies were often profound.  I find that's true of a 1943 film I just re-watched called "A stranger in Town", with Frank Morgan of "The Wizard of Oz" fame, who was a talented actor, with the ability to deliver great dialogue.  Such was the case in this movie.

America was in the throes of a two front war in 1943, and for a while America was on its back foot.  The turning point in the Pacific was in June of 1942 with the Battle of Midway, but what followed was an ugly slug fest none the less, and D-Day was yet to come in June of 1944.  This film appeared at the midway point to victory, and most weren't sure how it was going to end.  

This film was considered a "second tier" film and was released to the theaters with  Power of the Press, as the second feature, both of which:

"emphasized patriotism and the commitment of the population to the war effort. These films present situations in which some individuals are acting contrary to the interests of the country and use these transgressions to preach to the audience about their responsibilities as citizens."  

Quite common at that time, and a far cry from what Hollywood produces now, and most assuredly a far cry from what we see coming out of the mouths of celebrities in entertainment, sports, academia, the media and the politicians. 

Morgan plays a Supreme Court Justice on vacation, and incognito, who gets involved in a small town's politics because of the corruption, hence the theme of this movie is the need to fight those in power who are "acting contrary to the interests of the country".  

At the end of the movie the corrupt mayor demands to know who this stranger is that comes to his town causing trouble.  After John Josephus Grant (Morgan), an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court identifies himself, to the chagrin of his detractors, he then answers:

It's only right that you should know why I, a stranger, have become involved in your affairs. Believe me, it's not because I am a Justice of the Supreme Court. It's because, like all of you here, I am a citizen of this country. That is no little honor. 

Men have fought revolutions, have died, to be called "citizen". And as citizens, we carry a burning responsibility. It means that when we elect men to public office, we, we cannot do it as lightly as we flip a coin. It means that after we've elected them we can't sit back and say: "Our job is done. What they do now doesn't concern us." That philosophy of indifference is what the enemies of decent government want. If we allow them to have their way to grow strong and vicious, then the heroic struggle which welded thousands of lovely towns like this into a great nation means nothing. Then we're not citizens, we're traitors. 

The great liberties by which we live have been bought with blood. The kind of government we get is the kind of government we want. Government of the people, by the people and for the people can mean any kind of government. It's our duty to make it mean only one kind - uncorrupted, free, united.

I believe Mayor Connison, that I’ve answered your question. 

What I believe is the America is in crisis.  We've allowed those who hate the American identity, the American culture, the American economic system, and the Constitution to assume power at all levels of government, education, the media, and a judiciary filled with political hacks such as Judge Austin Harkley in this movie.  A judiciary that's completely lost any sense of balance or understanding, and in so many cases is stunningly corrupt, and I include the Supreme Court of the United States.  

We have failed to call to task the elected officials who are clearly enemies of America, enemies who claim conservatives are destroying "our" democracy.   What democracy are they talking about?  The one like the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea?  Because that's "their" Democracy, but that isn't American Democracy, and it isn't "our" democracy, hence the line:

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people can mean any kind of government." 
"It’s our duty to make it mean only one kind uncorrupted, free, united."

Let's try and get this right, at least once.  Their "Democracy" destroys our "Republic"!

We no longer know or understand history.  We substitute real history with leftist propaganda and call it history.  No one reads books any longer, especially history books.  We are an entire population that's been beguiled by the main stream media too lazy to find out the truth, yet because of the internet we have access to more information from more sources than any population in history.  Through a "philosophy of indifference" we've foolishly allowed these enemy citizens of America "to have their way [and] to grow strong and vicious"!  

And we wonder:  How did it all go wrong? 

Posted by Rich Kozlovich at 5:54 AM No comments:

Viewpoint: Glyphosate-cancer trials illustrate how tort lawyers undermine science in the courtroom

Richard Williams | December 14, 2020

Should we be fair to chemical manufacturers when they are sued? First of all, who are they? Since everything in the universe is made of up of chemicals, isn’t every manufacturer a chemical manufacturer. OK, no, it is only chemical manufacturers that make chemicals. Some are useful but hazardous, meaning they require special treatment. There are large ones like Bayer, but two-thirds of the 13,500 chemical plants are small.

If they are successfully sued, who actually loses? First, employees. The plant may have to reduce production or close down, which means employees get laid off. Lawsuits will affect the owners of the company’s stock some of whom are retirees on a pension.

We should pay attention because these types of lawsuits are growing. Perhaps because regulation moves so slowly, tort lawyers have found profitable opportunities by linking any chemical exposure to consumer or worker harm. The most widely known suit has been against Bayer, the owners of Roundup, that faced tens of thousands of claims claiming exposure to the herbicide caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Currently, the company has agreed to pay $10 billion to settle the claims.

Unlike federal agencies like the EPA, FDA, USDA and Department of Labor, law is applied unevenly “across different jurisdictions, different judges, and different jury pools.” The variation in how the law is applied to chemicals is so wide that there is even a website for “Judicial Hellholes.” If you’ve ever seen an ad asking if you or a loved one has been exposed to a chemical and you think it caused your ailment, it’s most likely from trial lawyers who spend millions on advertising to recruit potential plaintiffs and influence juries..........To Read More....

 

California judges provide stage for kangaroo court justice over Roundup

By Paul Driessen

San Francisco area juries have awarded cancer patients some $80 million each, based on claims that the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, caused their cancer – and that Bayer-Monsanto negligently or deliberately failed to warn consumers that the glyphosate it manufactures is carcinogenic. (It’s not.) Judges reduced the original truly outrageous awards of $289 million and even $1 billion per plaintiff!

Meanwhile, ubiquitous ads are still trolling for new clients, saying anyone who ever used Roundup and now has Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or other cancer could be the next jackpot justice winner. Mass tort plaintiff law firms have lined up 18,500 additional “corporate victims” for glyphosate litigation alone.

Introduced in 1974, glyphosate is licensed in 130 countries. Millions of farmers, homeowners and gardeners have made it the world’s most widely used herbicide – and one of the most intensely studied chemicals in history. Four decades and 3,300 studies by respected agencies and organizations worldwide have concluded that glyphosate is safe and non-carcinogenic, based on assessments of actual risk.

Reviewers include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Germany’s Institute for Risk Assessment, and Australia’s Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Another reviewer, Health Canada, noted that “no pesticide regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.” Therefore no need to warn anyone.

The National Cancer Institute’s ongoing Agricultural Health Study evaluated 54,000 farmers and commercial pesticide applicators for over two decades – and likewise found no glyphosate-cancer link.

Only the France-based International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), says otherwise – and it based its conclusions on just eight studies. Even worse, IARC manipulated at least some of these studies to get the results it wanted. Subsequent reviews by epidemiologist Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, National Cancer Institute statistician Dr. Robert Tarone, investigative journalist Kate Kelland, “RiskMonger” Dr. David Zaruk and other investigators have demonstrated that the IARC process was tainted beyond repair.

The IARC results should never have been allowed in court. But the judges in the first three cases let the tort lawyers bombard the jury with IARC cancer claims, and went even further. In the Hardeman case, Judge Vincent Chhabria blocked the introduction of EPA analyses that concluded “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans,” based on its careful review of many of the studies just mentioned.

He said he wanted “to avoid wasting time or misleading the jury, because the primary inquiry is what the scientific studies show, not what the EPA concluded they show.” However, IARC didn’t do any original studies either. It just concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” meaning studies it reviewed found limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, plus sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in lab animals that had been exposed to very high doses or lower doses for prolonged periods of time. In other words, under conditions that no animal or human would ever be exposed to in the real world.

It is also instructive to look at the three San Francisco area courtroom proceedings from another angle – an additional line of questioning that would have put glyphosate and Roundup in a very different light, and might have changed the outcome of these trials. Defense attorneys could have asked:  

Can you describe your family cancer history ... your eating, exercise and sleeping habits ... how much you eat high-fat foods ... how often you eat fruits and vegetables ... and your other lifestyle choices that doctors and other experts now know play significant roles in whether or not people get cancer?

How many times in your life [Johnson is 47 years old; Hardeman 70; Alva Pilliod 77; Alberta Pilliod 75] do you estimate you were exposed to substances on IARC’s list of Group 1 definite human carcinogens – including sunlight, acetaldehyde in alcoholic beverages, aflatoxin in peanuts, asbestos, cadmium in batteries, lindane ... or any of the 125 other substances and activities in Group 1? Have you ever smoked? How often have you been exposed to secondhand smoke? How often have you eaten bacon, sausage or other processed meats – which are also in Group 1?

How many times have you been exposed to any of IARC’s Group 2A probable human carcinogens – not just glyphosate ... but also anabolic steroids, creosote, diazinon, dieldrin, malathion, emissions from high-temperature food frying, shift work ... or any of the 75 other substances and activities in Group 2A? How often have you consumed beef or very hot beverages – likewise in Group 2A?

How many times have you been exposed to any of IARC’s Group 2B possible human carcinogens – including bracken ferns, chlordane, diesel fuel, fumonisin, inorganic lead, low frequency magnetic fields, malathion, parathion, titanium oxide in white paint, pickled vegetables, caffeic acid in coffee, tea, apples, broccoli, kale, and other fruits and vegetables ... ... or any of the 200 other substances and activities in Group 2B?

Pyrethrin pesticides used by organic farmers are powerful neurotoxins that are very toxic to bees, cats and fish – and have been linked by EPA and other experts to leukemia and other cancers and other health problems. How often have you eaten organic foods and perhaps been exposed to pyrethrins?

Large quantities of glyphosate have been manufactured for years in China and other countries. How do you know the glyphosate you were exposed to was manufactured by Bayer, and not one of them?

In view of all these exposures, please explain how you, your doctors, your lawyers and the experts you consulted concluded that none of your family history ... none of your lifestyle choices ... none of your exposures to dozens or even hundreds of other substances on IARC’s lists of carcinogens ... caused or contributed to your cancer – and that your cancer is due solely to your exposure to glyphosate.

Put another way, please explain exactly how you and your experts separated and quantified all these various exposures and lifestyle decisions – and concluded that Roundup from Bayer-Monsanto was the sole reason you got cancer – and all these other factors played no role whatsoever.

News accounts do not reveal whether Bayer-Monsanto lawyers asked these questions – or whether they tried to ask them, but the judges disallowed the questions. In any event, the bottom line is this:

It is bad enough that the IARC studies at the center of these jackpot justice lawsuits are the product of rampant collusion, misconduct and even fraud in the way IARC concluded glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” It is worse that these cancer trials have been driven by plaintiff lawyers’ emotional appeals to jurors’ largely misplaced fears of chemicals and minimal knowledge of chemicals, chemical risks, medicine and cancer – resulting in outrageous awards of $80 million or more.

Worst of all, our Federal District Courts have let misconduct by plaintiff lawyers drive these lawsuits; prevented defense attorneys from effectively countering IARC cancer claims and discussing the agency’s gross misconduct; and barred defense attorneys from presenting the extensive evidence that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans. The trials have been textbook cases of kangaroo court justice.

The cases are heading to appeal, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. We can only hope appellate judges will return sanity, fairness and justice to the nation’s litigation process. Otherwise our legal system will be irretrievably corrupted; products, technologies, companies and industries will likely be driven out of existence; and fraud, emotion and anarchy will reign.

Jackpot-justice law firms and their anti-chemical activist allies are already targeting cereals that have “detectable” levels of glyphosate: a few parts per billion or trillion, where 1 ppt is equivalent to 1 second in 32,000 years. Talc and benzene – foundations for numerous consumer products – are already under attack. Advanced technology neonicotinoid pesticides could be next.

It’s all part of a coordinated, well-funded attack on America, free enterprise and technology, using social media, litigation, intimidation and confrontation. Our legislatures and courts need to rein it in.  

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.