Gonzalez Creates Another Smokescreen

Gonzalez Wants Scrutiny -- Not of President, but Independent Judiciary

Gonzalez is making another smokescreen. The Attorney General, despite refusing to assent to a DoJ OPR review, wants the opposite for those who attempt to enforce Geneva and the Constitution: Oversight, scrutiny, and examination.

The Judicial branch, if it fails to enforce Geneva, could be lawfully executed for war crimes.

Sept 2006 Speech

* * *

Alberto Gonzalez' comments suggest he wants two standards on government accountability: One for judges, and nothing for the Executive.

Gonzalez would have more credibility if he had permitted the DOJ OPR to do its job; otherwise, Gonzalez comments should be taken as nothing more than a smokescreen and implicit threat against the Judicial Branch. Then again, what would you expect from the US Attorney General, an alleged war criminal who is a target of a war crimes prosecutor.

* * *

Apply Gonzalez Words To The President

Overall, Gonzalez speech is full of faulty resonating. [That's another issue.]

For fun, when you read "justice" or "judge" in Gonzalez' remarks, replace it with "President" -- you'll see the DoJ Smokescreen from the Executive's refusal to assent to the rule of law.

Samples [Removed text, Added text ]

1. I know its uncomfortable at times, tradition and canons of ethics make it more difficult for a judge to respond to criticism. But the concept of judicial independence has never meant and should never mean, that judges President or their decisions should be immune from public scrutiny. [Comment: The President is not a judge, so he should not complain when others point out his war crimes.]

2. Some criticism is unquestionably inappropriate. For example, the suggestion that judicial decisions Executive orders might somehow be an explanation or rational for violence is wrong. But most criticism should not be a source of legitimate serious concern for the federal judiciary Executive branch because they enjoy constitutional protections against its consequences. [Comment: Why are Executive Orders used to justify illegal violations of Geneva? If criticism of the Executive is nota problem, why was the Vice President concerned people "going after him" once Libby resigned? ]

3. Recognizing that criticism will come, judges this President must resist the temptation to craft opinions to avoid it or to seek approval, whether from the public, from the press, from academia, from elected leaders in the halls of Congress, from other judges dictators or from a court of appeals war crimes tribunal or 9-11 Commission full of Republican hacks..

4. As a consequence of Despite the independence that the Constitution's Framers provided, federal judges are relatively unaccountable for their decisions, until they are impeached, but that won't happen since Congress is full of Republican war criminals who refuse to enforce Geneva..

5. This is why it is so important that judges this alleged war criminal President and DoJ Staff flunkies understand their role in our constitutional democracy and hold themselves accountable to it. [Comment: They took an oath to it, but that wasn't enough. They ignore the courts. Besides open combat, what forum do the alleged war criminals hope to resolve this dispute?]

6. When the Constitutional text demands an unpopular result, judges this President and the alleged war criminals in Congress cannot shirk from their responsibilities nor issue a signing statement or illegal bills to indicate their shirkiness.

7. A proper sense of judicial Oval Office humility requires judges the clerk, with few powers to keep in mind the many institutional constitutional limitations of the judiciary this President and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches.

8. Justice Alito said: "(T)he (federal courts) President and Executive Branch and members of Congress should not be insulated from public opinion or war crimes prosecutions. They should do what the law requires in all instances. That's why the members of the judiciary Cabinet are not elected. We have a basically democratic form of government, but the judiciary Cabinet is not elected. And that's the reason: so that they don't do anything under fire. They do what the law requires." [Comment: If people who are appointed "do" what the law requires, what's Gonzalez excuse?]

9. Above all, I hope that you will leave this conference with a renewed faith in the rule of law and an independent judiciary executive as cornerstones of our fascist system of government.

* * *

Gonzalez Logic Problems

Here are some comments from the peanut gallery:

- -

Thank you, and good morning. [Loser, war criminal. Isn't that Alleged war criminal? You're correct: "Loser, alleged war criminal." Thank you. No problem. Loser! ]

It is an honor to be here and to share a few thoughts with you on the importance of judicial independence. [ Ha. Important my ass. You treat the courts with disdain. If you really like the courts, why did you ignore the FISA court? ]

I want to begin by thanking all judges for their sacrifice to our country and their contribution to the rule of law. [ Disingenuous. You ignore the rule of law, so why are you thanking them for doing what you oppose? ]

There is no question that my views on the importance of an independent judiciary were molded and defined while I served as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court. [ He was asleep ]

I must confess that I accepted the appointment to the court with some reluctance, since I was not an appellate law specialist at the time -- I practiced corporate law-and I had never aspired to be a judge. [ Harriet Miers wasn't qualified either, but there was a harder review than the Texas Rubber Stamp. ]

I enjoyed my job as Texas Secretary of State. [ Who cares ]

But I accepted the appointment as a judge because I could think of no better way to continue to serve both my profession and my beloved State of Texas. [ Why are you attorney General and ignoring judges? ]

While serving on the bench, I learned some lasting lessons pertaining to the topic of this conference. [None of them you put into practice. ]

First, the character of person who sits on the bench is fundamentally important. [Then why did you appoint someone who has disdain for the Constitution and Geneva Conventions, like Justice Roberts? ]

Second, the process by which a judge renders a decision is crucial. [Doesn't this apply to DoJ Staff as well: Are they knowledgeable of Geneva? ]

And third, it is essential that judges be courageous enough to do the right thing, motivated solely by a respect for the law, undeterred by criticism or the possible outcome of the next election. [ Especially when reviewing Presidential war crimes -- the judges could be prosecuted for war crimes if they fail to enforce Geneva. ]

I mention elections here because judges in Texas and several other states are required to run in partisan elections. [Presidential elections weren't something to comment on? ]

Following my appointment to the court, for example, I -- like all other judges on my court -- had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat. [They raise money, not their hand to protect the Constitution ]

As many of you know, there has been a great deal of debate in recent years about the wisdom of partisan judicial elections. [By stupid lawyers ]

A number of states have implemented other means of judicial selection, including merit selection and appointment with retention elections, in response to this debate. [We the People should do the same for Cabinet officers and the US Attorney General ]

I remain concerned about the fact that judicial elections require judges to raise funds -- because most contributions to judicial campaigns come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had or will have, cases before the court. [Kind of like lawyers who draft bills to immunize themselves for war crimes ]

The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss. [This doesn't apply to the Oval Office? ]

While I am sure that the number of elected judges who are actually influenced by campaign contributions in deciding cases is very small, surveys in Texas and elsewhere indicate that a significant percentage of voters believe that judges are influenced by campaign funds. [Amazing what the "speculative threat" of a belief will do -- how about some concern about real issues like the Constitution ]

Public perception may be as important as reality in this case. [If I perceive you are a war criminal, isn't that good enough to start an investigation? ]

I believe that popular beliefs about the influence of campaign funds on judges' decisions tend to have a corrosive effect on public confidence in a state's judicial system. [You suggesting we shouldn't talk about corruption? ]

And if Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined. [Corrupt politicians didn't undermine the Constitution -- they ignored it and you didn't investigate or prosecute them. Why are you complaining? ]

Of course, at the federal level, our judges are appointed and have lifetime tenure. [Unless they are impeached for failing to enforce Geneva ]

Principles of judicial independence are woven tightly into the fabric of our nation's government. [No, the fabric isn't in the government, it's in the Constitution ]

Alexander Hamilton championed the concept of life tenure for judges in Federalist 78, arguing that lifetime tenure would be the "best expedient (that) can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws." [Federalist 78 also talks about a New Constitution when alleged war criminals like you refuse to assent to the rule of law ]

Our Constitution provides lifetime tenure to our federal judges and provides compensation that cannot be diminished because it affords judges the opportunity-and the duty-to make difficult, courageous and at times unpopular decisions. [No wonder you ignored the court -- you reasonably concluded they would deny you from doing something that was not Constitutional. ]

Elected judges in the states, on the other hand, are not shielded by lifetime tenure from the public's perceptions of their opinions. [State judges can also oversee criminal trials of the President. ]

Nevertheless, I regularly hear about the pressures of public criticism from federal judges. [Alot of criticism comes from your office. ]

Now I want to be candid here...respectful, but candid. [You're being arrogant ]

Virtually every time a judge makes a decision in the pursuit of justice, he or she is going to make someone unhappy. [The President didn't want to be unhappy, so he ignored the court and Constitution. ]

The nature of the job guarantees criticism. [If this is the "nature of the job," why is the President complaining about those who are accusing him of war crimes? ]

I know its uncomfortable at times, tradition and canons of ethics make it more difficult for a judge to respond to criticism. [That's why the DoJ Staff criticizes judges with press releases that are stupid ]

But the concept of judicial independence has never meant and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune from public scrutiny. Nor should the President and Attorney General be immune to scrutiny by war crimes prosecutors ]

We live in a society of free speech and lively debate, and criticism has long been a part of judicial history. [You only respect that if the shills in the RNC agree with you, not with those who are attempting to protect the Constitution. ]

In fact, I received my fair share of it when I served on the Texas Supreme Court. [Obviously, not enough. ]

Some criticism is unquestionably inappropriate. [That's why the DoJ Staff does it. ]

For example, the suggestion that judicial decisions might somehow be an explanation or rational for violence is wrong. [Presidents do this, what's your point -- that you say its wrong, but do it anyway? Are you Foley? ]

But most criticism should not be a source of legitimate serious concern for the federal judiciary [Obviously, this is invalid, the US marshals, as you well know, are reporting more threats against Judges ]

. . .because they enjoy constitutional protections against its consequences. [Your sentence makes no sense. If there was no concern for criticism, why do the Judges have security guards? Because DoJ staffers like to incite people to hate the courts for doing what is lawful. ]

Recognizing that criticism will come, judges must resist the temptation to craft opinions to avoid it or to seek approval, whether from the public, from the press, from academia, from elected leaders in the halls of Congress, from other judges or from a court of appeals. [Where there is criticism against the President, then he too should not whine when the public complains. But he does. ]

As a consequence of the independence that the Constitution's Framers provided, federal judges are relatively unaccountable for their decisions. [Baloney, they can be impeached like the President. ]

This is why it is so important that judges understand their role in our constitutional democracy and hold themselves accountable to it. [If you're going to lecture anyone about reading the law, look in the mirror. ]

When the Constitutional text demands an unpopular result, judges cannot shirk from their responsibilities. [Why is the President shirking from his responsibilities? ]

They might be criticized; but that's America. [The President should suck it up while he is frog marched to The Hague ]

In addition, respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn longstanding traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot -- and should not -- be shielded from criticism. [You're just giving an excuse to blame the court for enforcing Geneva and FISA. Take responsibility, Frito Pie Boy. ]

A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches. [The President should respect the Constitutional limits on power: Do not violate the Bill of Rights, and follow all treaties. ]

The Constitution, for example, clearly makes the President the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and assigns other important war powers to the Congress. [The President must ensure combat operations are lawful abroad; and domestic use of military forces like the NSA are consistent with the Bill of Rights. ]

The Supreme Court has long recognized, moreover, the executive's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. [This is not absolute power to violate the law. ]

The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during war time. [The Supreme Court has the power to strike down illegal Presidential conduct, as they did with Lincoln's illegal martial law in ex parte Mulligan ]

Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review. [DoJ Staff have no power to illegally violate the law, or write policies which ignore Geneva or the Constitution. ]

This is why President Bush has sought to appoint judges who will not carry out a personal agenda on the bench. [You're joking -- if he had no objective of carrying out a political agenda, he'd appoint Judges that he didn't like, and who were serious about enforcing Geneva. ]

During the past five years, as I have had the privilege of advising President Bush on the selection of many of our nation's judges, I have come to appreciate these lessons more than ever. [Too bad you ignored the Constitution, Geneva, FISA, the Supreme Law, and your oath.

From my experience, I can tell you that the selection and appointment of judges who are committed to upholding the law and to serve our country to the best of their ability is extremely important to the President, as it is to me. [You select judges who are willing to turn a blind eye to Geneva violations ]

I have often said that few presidential decisions are more important than lifetime appointments to the federal bench. [The other important decision is to decide which jacket you will wear on the day The Hague lawfully convicts you of war crimes. It may be the last time you are photographed. Alive. ]

Many of a president's policies and programs, no matter how popular or worthy, can be undone by the very next president or the next Congress. [Actually, the Constitution is silent on whether a President's programs are or are not renewable. We see little reason to recertify DoJ. ]

But a judicial appointment lasts a lifetime. Indeed, these judicial appointments often represent a president's most enduring legacy. [A war crimes indictment is quite a legacy ]

Of course, this legacy has not been limited to filling vacancies in the federal courts of appeals and the district courts. [The legacy includes deciding which jet to board at Andrews AFB -- one for the CIA rendition, or The Hague. Don’t worry, they're both going to the same location.

This past year, we saw the passing of a great Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist and the retirement of another distinguished justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. [Who has warned us about your fascism ]

The President selected two of our country's most outstanding jurists, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, to fill their seats and to carry on the mission entrusted to our nation's Supreme Court. [Because his first choices refused to take the job, or were not qualified. ]

During their respective confirmation hearings, America's citizens came to know Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito as judges who are intelligent, read="squirrelly

principled [ Geneva, war crimes ]

and committed to the rule of law [ at The Hague ]

and to the independence of our judiciary. [ So long as the Judiciary remains a lap dog to Fascism ]

Their testimony before the United States Senate served as a powerful civics lesson, reminding us of the role of judges and the judiciary in our democratic and constitutional systems. [They woke up America -- these judges could be prosecuted for war crimes. ]

Notably, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary during their hearings. [Why are you complaining about independent judges that enforce Geneva? ]

For example, Chief Justice Roberts succinctly stated: "An independent judiciary is one of the keys to safeguarding the rule of law." [And the Constitution ]

Justice Alito said: "(T)he (federal courts) should be insulated from public opinion. They should do what the law requires in all instances. That's why the members of the judiciary are not elected. We have a basically democratic form of government, but the judiciary is not elected. And that's the reason: so that they don't do anything under fire. They do what the law requires." [This doesn't mean that unelected Cabinet offers are immune to prosecution for war crimes. ]

I could not say it any better. [Thank you for your testimony for the war crimes prosecutor ]

In closing, I can tell you that I am confident that the conference's distinguished and learned speakers and participants will provide you with thoughtful and well-informed examinations of the state and health of the nation's judiciary. [This is the part where he's trying to pretend to be interested with the Conference. He's not. ]

Above all, I hope that you will leave this conference with a renewed faith in the rule of law and an independent judiciary as cornerstones of our system of government. [Gonzalez certainly won't, he hopes to undermine the rule of law. ]

Thank you. [You're welcome, asshole. Don't let the door on prison cell hit you in the rear-end. There is not enough room for large pads in orange jumpsuits with such tiny crotches. ]

* * *

Here are the original remarks

Thank you, and good morning. It is an honor to be here and to share a few thoughts with you on the importance of judicial independence.

I want to begin by thanking all judges for their sacrifice to our country and their contribution to the rule of law. There is no question that my views on the importance of an independent judiciary were molded and defined while I served as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court. I must confess that I accepted the appointment to the court with some reluctance, since I was not an appellate law specialist at the time -- I practiced corporate law-and I had never aspired to be a judge. I enjoyed my job as Texas Secretary of State. But I accepted the appointment as a judge because I could think of no better way to continue to serve both my profession and my beloved State of Texas.


While serving on the bench, I learned some lasting lessons pertaining to the topic of this conference.


First, the character of person who sits on the bench is fundamentally important.


Second, the process by which a judge renders a decision is crucial.


And third, it is essential that judges be courageous enough to do the right thing, motivated solely by a respect for the law, undeterred by criticism or the possible outcome of the next election.


I mention elections here because judges in Texas and several other states are required to run in partisan elections. Following my appointment to the court, for example, I -- like all other judges on my court -- had to raise enough money to run print ads and place television spots around the state in order to retain my seat.


As many of you know, there has been a great deal of debate in recent years about the wisdom of partisan judicial elections. A number of states have implemented other means of judicial selection, including merit selection and appointment with retention elections, in response to this debate.


I remain concerned about the fact that judicial elections require judges to raise funds -- because most contributions to judicial campaigns come from lawyers and law firms, many of whom have had or will have, cases before the court. The appearance of a conflict of interest is difficult to dismiss.


While I am sure that the number of elected judges who are actually influenced by campaign contributions in deciding cases is very small, surveys in Texas and elsewhere indicate that a significant percentage of voters believe that judges are influenced by campaign funds.


Public perception may be as important as reality in this case. I believe that popular beliefs about the influence of campaign funds on judges' decisions tend to have a corrosive effect on public confidence in a state's judicial system. And if Americans come to believe that judges are simply politicians or their decisions can be purchased for a price, state judicial systems will be undermined.


Of course, at the federal level, our judges are appointed and have lifetime tenure. Principles of judicial independence are woven tightly into the fabric of our nation's government. Alexander Hamilton championed the concept of life tenure for judges in Federalist 78, arguing that lifetime tenure would be the "best expedient (that) can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws."


Our Constitution provides lifetime tenure to our federal judges and provides compensation that cannot be diminished because it affords judges the opportunity-and the duty-to make difficult, courageous and at times unpopular decisions.


Elected judges in the states, on the other hand, are not shielded by lifetime tenure from the public's perceptions of their opinions. Nevertheless, I regularly hear about the pressures of public criticism from federal judges.

Now I want to be candid here...respectful, but candid. Virtually every time a judge makes a decision in the pursuit of justice, he or she is going to make someone unhappy. The nature of the job guarantees criticism. I know its uncomfortable at times, tradition and canons of ethics make it more difficult for a judge to respond to criticism. But the concept of judicial independence has never meant and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune from public scrutiny. We live in a society of free speech and lively debate, and criticism has long been a part of judicial history. In fact, I received my fair share of it when I served on the Texas Supreme Court.

Some criticism is unquestionably inappropriate. For example, the suggestion that judicial decisions might somehow be an explanation or rational for violence is wrong. But most criticism should not be a source of legitimate serious concern for the federal judiciary because they enjoy constitutional protections against its consequences.

Recognizing that criticism will come, judges must resist the temptation to craft opinions to avoid it or to seek approval, whether from the public, from the press, from academia, from elected leaders in the halls of Congress, from other judges or from a court of appeals.

As a consequence of the independence that the Constitution's Framers provided, federal judges are relatively unaccountable for their decisions. This is why it is so important that judges understand their role in our constitutional democracy and hold themselves accountable to it. When the Constitutional text demands an unpopular result, judges cannot shirk from their responsibilities. They might be criticized; but that's America. In addition, respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn longstanding traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot -- and should not -- be shielded from criticism. A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches.

The Constitution, for example, clearly makes the President the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and assigns other important war powers to the Congress. The Supreme Court has long recognized, moreover, the executive's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during war time. Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review. This is why President Bush has sought to appoint judges who will not carry out a personal agenda on the bench.

During the past five years, as I have had the privilege of advising President Bush on the selection of many of our nation's judges, I have come to appreciate these lessons more than ever.

From my experience, I can tell you that the selection and appointment of judges who are committed to upholding the law and to serve our country to the best of their ability is extremely important to the President, as it is to me. I have often said that few presidential decisions are more important than lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Many of a president's policies and programs, no matter how popular or worthy, can be undone by the very next president or the next Congress. But a judicial appointment lasts a lifetime. Indeed, these judicial appointments often represent a president's most enduring legacy.

Of course, this legacy has not been limited to filling vacancies in the federal courts of appeals and the district courts. This past year, we saw the passing of a great Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist and the retirement of another distinguished justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. The President selected two of our country's most outstanding jurists, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, to fill their seats and to carry on the mission entrusted to our nation's Supreme Court.

During their respective confirmation hearings, America's citizens came to know Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito as judges who are intelligent, principled and committed to the rule of law and to the independence of our judiciary. Their testimony before the United States Senate served as a powerful civics lesson, reminding us of the role of judges and the judiciary in our democratic and constitutional systems.

Notably, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary during their hearings. For example, Chief Justice Roberts succinctly stated: "An independent judiciary is one of the keys to safeguarding the rule of law."

Justice Alito said: "(T)he (federal courts) should be insulated from public opinion. They should do what the law requires in all instances. That's why the members of the judiciary are not elected. We have a basically democratic form of government, but the judiciary is not elected. And that's the reason: so that they don't do anything under fire. They do what the law requires."

I could not say it any better.

In closing, I can tell you that I am confident that the conference's distinguished and learned speakers and participants will provide you with thoughtful and well-informed examinations of the state and health of the nation's judiciary. Above all, I hope that you will leave this conference with a renewed faith in the rule of law and an independent judiciary as cornerstones of our system of government.

Thank you.