08/08/2024
Our hero of the week is Justice Elena Kagan, who spoke truth to power over the last couple of months, by publicly specifying that illegitimate justices violating stare decisis (legal precedents), may be removed by the lower courts, which Prakash and Smith (2006) laid out and published the legal arguments for, in a collaboration with Yale Law, Cornell Law, and San Diego Law.
"Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Monday cautioned that courts look political and forfeit legitimacy when they needlessly overturn precedent and decide more than they have to.
Speaking less than three months after a five-justice conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade's constitutional guarantee of abortion access, Kagan said the public's view of the court can be damaged especially when changes in its membership lead to big changes in the law.
She stressed that she was not talking about any particular decision or even a string of rulings with which she disagreed.
Still, her remarks were similar to points made in dissenting opinions she wrote or contributed to in recent months, including in the abortion case.
"Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves ... when they instead stray into places where it looks like they're an extension of the political process or when they're imposing their own personal preferences," Kagan said at Temple Emanu-El in New York. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-elena-kagan-forfeit-legitimacy-precedent/
Per our previous reporting, the unlawfully-appointed GOP SCOTUS majority -- hand-picked by the Federalist Society, who was financed by the organized crime syndicate, clients, financiers, and/or associates of Jeffrey Epstein and 2016 conspirators with U.S. enemy, Russia -- were appointed (1) only after G.H.W. Bush's Anti-Castro Cuban group's E. Howard Hunt admitted to Spotlight Magazine that they murdered JFK (followed by Hunt losing the related defamation lawsuit in court); and (2) only after Nixon committed treason and elections fraud with U.S. enemies in South Vietnam; and (3) only after G.H.W. Bush's and Ronald Reagan's treason and elections fraud with U.S. enemies Iran and the Contras; and (4) only after this resulted in the elections fraud by the GOP SCOTUS majority resulting from all of the same during the 2000 elections, followed by the 9/11 treason conspiracy distraction, and it's RICO obstruction by the GOP and crime syndicate of Jeffrey Epstein (specifically Nixon's Henry Kissinger); and (5) only after Trump's, the GOP's, and Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate's treason and elections fraud with U.S. enemies Russia, Alfa Bank, Rosneft, and/or others.
And so to start with, at best this unlawfully-appointed GOP SCOTUS majority are what are known as de facto officers only, which means officers that weren't properly appointed per the U.S. Constitution, because those appointing them had committed disqualifying treason and/or elections crimes that disqualified them from public offices -- BEFORE they appointed these SCOTUS judges to RICO obstruct for the same this year -- with their invention of "absolute immunity" for the conduct of the Presidents who appointed them, in what amount to a fallacious or flawed legal and illogical circular argument, where these unlawfully-appointed GOP SCOTUS usurpers then used their ill-got offices to illegitimately-legitimize themselves by inventing "absolute immunity" for those not qualified to appoint them. Res ipsa loquitur malum in se, this natural evil speaks for itself.
De facto officers can be defeated, removed from public offices, and all of their changes to the government negated, set aside, nullified, and/or voided with a showing of "bad faith", and where there is no greater bad faith than an unlawfully-appointed judge abusing their power to invent laws to legitimize their illegitimacy, and to RICO obstruct justice for themselves and those who committed disqualifying crimes as accessories after the fact, like serial getaway drivers for bank/elections heists, helping the criminals get away the crimes of the collective towards that common purpose, or meeting of the minds.
And so to begin, the GOP SCOTUS majority wasn't lawfully-appointed post-disqualifying crimes of treason and/or elections crimes.
Similarly, all of the GOP SCOTUS majority usurpers, except for Harlan Crow's bribed Clarence Thomas, specified during their unlawful nomination and/or confirmation hearings that they would support, continue, and/or not violate stare decisis, and yet all of them have with all sorts of cases, from their attack on whistleblowers (Ryder), their attack on all of the executive branch enforcement agencies (Chevron), their attack on the reproductive rights of women (Roe v. Wade), but not at all limited to the same. As their oath of office taken by each of them both specified the scope of their employment and served as a prerequisite agreement to their employment -- to support and not attack the U.S. Constitution -- and as they have attacked and/or not supported the U.S. Constitution, then no agreement got by perjured fraud is enforceable and may be revoked, yet another way to remove these SCOTUS usurpers. Again, there are many ways.
According to Kagan, and where UPR News' several hundreds of pages of legal research has been able to verify the same, a failure to follow precedent indeed did disqualify all of the GOP SCOTUS usurpers from public offices, and many different ways we won't get into here (but for example also includes judges who act like criminal defense attorneys for enemies of the United States instead of as impartial judges, giving aid, comfort, and/or adhering to U.S. enemies during wartime, which is separately disqualifying treason), but sufficed to say that there is a large volume of law that disqualified all of the GOP SCOTUS usurpers before, during, and after they were unlawfully appointed, nominated, and/or confirmed, and thus the law and justice demand that these disqualified individuals be immediately removed from public office and/or government employment, and requires that all of their changes to the government be negated, voided, nullified, reversed, set aside, and the like.
Kagan specified that these illegitimate GOP SCOTUS usurpers should be removed by the lower courts (because no one can be their own judge for matters of their own interest is a long-established precedent, and where no one is above the law).
"Kagan on Thursday called criticism of the code of conduct “fair,” and went on to say that she thought the best enforcers of it for the Supreme Court would be lower-court judges, but not the justices themselves.
“I can’t think of other people who should enforce a code of conduct … against judges. And I think it would be quite bad … for us to do it to each other,” she said. “In other words, for the same judges who are sitting around the table trying to decide cases, to be to be the people who are saying, ‘Oh, no, you broke that rule or you didn’t break that rule.’”"
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/kagan-supreme-court-ethics-sacramento-conference/index.html
Prakash and Smith (2006) came to the same conclusion as Kagan, and in fact laid out the legal arguments for removing federal judges from their corrupted public offices -- outside of impeachment, which is simply a different way to remove officers and/or employees of the United States, and where our research found many more laws and ways to remove "any" person from "any" office and/or from government employment.
More specifically, Prakash and Smith researched and published the legal path -- in a collaboration with Yale Law, Cornell Law, and San Diego Law -- to have the lower courts remove federal judges like but not limited to SCOTUS, Aileen Cannon, Carl Nichols, and/or others for engaging in "bad behavior", summarized by the following abstract.
"Most everyone assumes that impeachment is the only means of removing federal judges and that the Constitution’s grant of good-behavior tenure is an implicit reference to impeachment. This Article challenges that conventional wisdom.
Using evidence from England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior.
There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual.
Contrary to what many might suppose, judges were not the only ones who could be granted good-behavior tenure. Anything that might be held—land, licenses, employment, etc.—could be granted during good behavior, and private parties could grant good-behavior tenure to other private individuals.
Impeachment, by contrast, referred to a criminal procedure conducted in the legislature that could lead to an array of criminal sanctions. In England and in the colonies, impeachment was never seen as a means of judging whether someone with good-behavior tenure had forfeited her tenure by reason of misbehavior.
Whether a landholder, employee, or government officer with good-behavior tenure had misbehaved would be determined in the ordinary courts of law.
Moreover, the vast majority of state constitutions did not equate good-behavior tenure with impeachment either.
To the contrary, many distinguished them explicitly. Taken together, these propositions devastate the conventional conflation of good-behavior tenure with impeachment.
More importantly, they indicate that the original Constitution did not render impeachment the only possible means of removing federal judges with good-behavior tenure. Given the long tradition of adjudicating misbehavior in the ordinary courts, Congress may enact necessary and proper legislation permitting the removal of federal judges upon a finding of misbehavior in the ordinary courts of law"
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/438_q54sjnwz.pdf
The full legal arguments can be found in the link above.
And so in addition to the revoked perjured fraud and breached agreement (at least via the oath of office) used to deceive the government into providing the GOP SCOTUS usurpers -- who weren't lawfully appointed per the Constitution -- impeachment may remove the GOP SCOTUS usurpers, and so may anyone employing the lower courts, for cause, to ensure the independence and integrity of the judiciary, not served by illegitimately-appointed and bad behaving judges acting in bad faith, who want to self-regulate themselves in a manner that always finds them worthy of staying in the offices they are usurping and corrupting to the benefit of themselves, organized crime linked to Jeffrey Epstein, and enemies of the United States, including but not limited to Russia, Donald Trump, the crime syndicate billionaires of Jeffrey Epstein, and their proxies, but not limited to the same.
Similarly, a wealth of U.S. laws disqualify "any" person or "whomever" from "any" public office and/or government employment, and none of these laws specify an exception for SCOTUS judges, any other judges, members of Congress, the President, nor anyone else, and so there is more than one legal path to remove the GOP SCOTUS usurpers from the offices they are corrupting.
Accordingly, Justice Kagan is our hero of the week, (1) because she has let the public know that the GOP SCOTUS usurpers can be disqualified -- having not honored nor met, but violated, their sworn oaths and their ill-got nomination/confirmation testimonies, by violating stare decisis; and (2) because Kagan also let the public know that lower courts are a good way to enforce the criminal misconduct of those illegitimate GOP SCOTUS usurpers, entirely consistent with the legal pathways elucidated and published by the collaboration between Prakash and Smith (2006), Yale Law, Cornell Law, and San Diego Law -- and elucidated well before Trump ran for office, and well before at least half of the GOP SCOTUS usurpers were unlawfully-appointed, and elucidated during a GOP administration.
And so unlike the GOP SCOTUS usurpers, no one is inventing laws here after the fact to suit their personal agendas, and in a manner more consistent with the rule of man (used by monarchs and other dictators) than the rule of law, but rather, Kagan, Prakash, Smith, and others are simply specifying the laws that prove the need -- and some of the many paths available -- to remove, void, and thus remedy these anarchists, traitors, seditionists, elections fraudsters, usurpers, and terrorists RICO obstructing justice for ongoing disqualifying crimes as accessories after the fact, and with just cause.