More on why Harriet Miers is not a good candidate.
The Harriet Miers nomination was wrong on so many levels, about the only thing going for her in my mind is that the republicans and neocons and conservatives don't like her. (which is almost like an endorsement.)
But still, "evangelical christian" is not a qualifying requirment for being a supreme court justice. Yet, so fare, that's all we know about her right now.
Furthermore, on the topic of evangelical christian - the term evangelical when applied to the christian religious organization, means several things, none of which a judge on the supreme court should be. (dictionary.com def on 'evangelical')
- It means believing in the utter sole authority of the christian bible, and it's inerrancy (inerrancy was the term used in dictionary.com, I know it doesn't look like a real word, but it must be). That doesn't sound like a sound foundation for a country that is supposed to offer a government that is religiously neutral.
- It means in personal conversion and salvation only thru spriritually transforming one's life in a christian belief structure (once again, how impartial can a person who is unquestioning and absolutist in their dogmatic belief be?) and it means
- "Marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause", and in this case the cause is the conversion to christianity. I can't fathom living in a country where so many conservatives sit on the supreme court where they can legislate from the bench on forcing the rest of us, the non-christian american citizens, the non-religious US citizens, into living life by their religious dogma.
Here's my point - right now agnostics and athiests are descriminated against regularly, and there's not much we can do. Non-Christian but religious people in this nation are also increasingly under fire. I mean, can you imagine an outed athiest getting elected to the presidency or any public office? Can you imagine an outed athiest holding any high position or post? Unlikely. That's descrimination. Now imagine an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN (see def above) sitting in that appointed position for life! How much worse can life for non-christians get?
posted by Nik @ 4:10 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
State of U.S. Courts. . .
Consider the following:
Open Letter
October 23, 2005
United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544
Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219
United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)
Dear All:
Please be advise of the following criminal activity.
On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.
In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.
At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.
The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”
Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).
Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.
In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).
I demand an immediate investigation.
Respectfully,
(Name Removed)
Post a Comment
<< Home