Rule of Bullshit
My family and I live in the mountains of North Carolina. Appalachia. We couldn't be happier about that. There's a lot I could say about the contrast between the chaotic, overrun southern Mexi-china-hindoo-arab-fornia we used to live in, and here, but I'm moved today to write by a North Carolina "voter guide" I just received in the mail.
Due to the vagaries of local politcs only North Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates appear in this guide. A total of five seats are in dispute. I'm struck by the language in the personal statements of these candidates.
Supreme Court "Bradey Seat": Robert C. Hunter vs Barbara Jackson. Hunter finds it important not only to mention his "mountain values", that he is "working tirelessly to protect North Carolinians", and that he is "the only Justice residing west of Greensboro/Charlotte" - but to print these points in bold text. For some reason he doesn't also bold that he "enjoys golf, fishing, hunting, and NASCAR." His challenger, Jackson, emphasizes her "service to the people of NC" and her "oath of office" "to serve as guardian of NC's constitution" "who has the utmost respect for the rule of law".
Appeals "Calabria Seat": Ann Marie Calabria vs Jane Gray. Calabria "consistently uphold(s) our Constitution and faithfully interests the laws". She writes "I believe the U.S. and N.C. Constitutions establish federal and state governments of limited powers. I believe our Founders intended to guarantee freedom, property rights, and individual rights. I believe in judicial restraint, not judicial activism." Her challenger, Gray, believes in "the rule of law, as decisions cannot be based on political considerations or popular opinion."
Appeals "Elmore Seat": Rick Elmore vs Steven Walker. Elmore notes his service to "his fellow North Carolinians", and writes "[a]n appellate court is no place for judicial activism". "I have a reputation as a fair, couteous, and diligent judge who closely adheres the rule of law." His challenger, Walker, writes "[a]s a child growing up in North Carolina, I was taught the values of family, faith, integrity, and community. I still hold these values today. My judicial philosophy is simple. Judges are to interpret the laws as written by the legislature. The Constitution means what it actually says, not what a judge may wish it says." "I am a conservative who understands the value of following the law as written."
Appeals "Geer Seat": Martha Geer vs Dean R. Poirier. Geer cites the number of her decisions, her endorsements, and her commitment to "taking the time to fully understand the details of each appeal before writing a quality, impartial decision." Her challenger, Poirier, describes himself as "a Christian, Constitutional, Conservative." He believes in "judicial humility" and "judicial restraint" as opposed to "judicial arrogance" and "judicial activism".
Appeals "Steelman Seat": Sanford L. Steelman Jr. is unopposed. Steelman writes that "[t]he conservative values learned as an Eagle Scout and as a lifelong Baptist will continue to be my guides. I am humbled that members of both major political parties felt that I should run without oppostion" "and look forward to continuing to serve this great State where my family has resided for 8 generations."
What strikes me is the use of hardly-coded language to the effect that, you should trust me, I'm "conservative" (i.e. White), like you, and I'm opposed to all this leftist, revolutionary garbage you might have heard swirling around. Yet despite this, as I was well aware even before moving to this state, North Carolina is, with regard to immigration, what might be called a second tier state. Where California, Texas, and Florida are first tier states, almost completely overrun now with interlopers, the governments of second tier states like Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina appear eager to follow the first tier into economic and social oblivion. Here in the mountains it is a different story - but short of secession mass immigration will be the doom of us all.
The point I'd like to make is that when election time comes around nearly every politician trys to pose as "conservative". They know where the votes are, what the citizenry wants. But when it comes time to do their duty, to pass judgement, to enforce the law, or uphold the Constitution, they somehow find it possible to abide their "fellow North Carolinians" being rapidly replaced by alien interlopers, with or without "papers".
"Rule of law", my ass.
Due to the vagaries of local politcs only North Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates appear in this guide. A total of five seats are in dispute. I'm struck by the language in the personal statements of these candidates.
Supreme Court "Bradey Seat": Robert C. Hunter vs Barbara Jackson. Hunter finds it important not only to mention his "mountain values", that he is "working tirelessly to protect North Carolinians", and that he is "the only Justice residing west of Greensboro/Charlotte" - but to print these points in bold text. For some reason he doesn't also bold that he "enjoys golf, fishing, hunting, and NASCAR." His challenger, Jackson, emphasizes her "service to the people of NC" and her "oath of office" "to serve as guardian of NC's constitution" "who has the utmost respect for the rule of law".
Appeals "Calabria Seat": Ann Marie Calabria vs Jane Gray. Calabria "consistently uphold(s) our Constitution and faithfully interests the laws". She writes "I believe the U.S. and N.C. Constitutions establish federal and state governments of limited powers. I believe our Founders intended to guarantee freedom, property rights, and individual rights. I believe in judicial restraint, not judicial activism." Her challenger, Gray, believes in "the rule of law, as decisions cannot be based on political considerations or popular opinion."
Appeals "Elmore Seat": Rick Elmore vs Steven Walker. Elmore notes his service to "his fellow North Carolinians", and writes "[a]n appellate court is no place for judicial activism". "I have a reputation as a fair, couteous, and diligent judge who closely adheres the rule of law." His challenger, Walker, writes "[a]s a child growing up in North Carolina, I was taught the values of family, faith, integrity, and community. I still hold these values today. My judicial philosophy is simple. Judges are to interpret the laws as written by the legislature. The Constitution means what it actually says, not what a judge may wish it says." "I am a conservative who understands the value of following the law as written."
Appeals "Geer Seat": Martha Geer vs Dean R. Poirier. Geer cites the number of her decisions, her endorsements, and her commitment to "taking the time to fully understand the details of each appeal before writing a quality, impartial decision." Her challenger, Poirier, describes himself as "a Christian, Constitutional, Conservative." He believes in "judicial humility" and "judicial restraint" as opposed to "judicial arrogance" and "judicial activism".
Appeals "Steelman Seat": Sanford L. Steelman Jr. is unopposed. Steelman writes that "[t]he conservative values learned as an Eagle Scout and as a lifelong Baptist will continue to be my guides. I am humbled that members of both major political parties felt that I should run without oppostion" "and look forward to continuing to serve this great State where my family has resided for 8 generations."What strikes me is the use of hardly-coded language to the effect that, you should trust me, I'm "conservative" (i.e. White), like you, and I'm opposed to all this leftist, revolutionary garbage you might have heard swirling around. Yet despite this, as I was well aware even before moving to this state, North Carolina is, with regard to immigration, what might be called a second tier state. Where California, Texas, and Florida are first tier states, almost completely overrun now with interlopers, the governments of second tier states like Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina appear eager to follow the first tier into economic and social oblivion. Here in the mountains it is a different story - but short of secession mass immigration will be the doom of us all.
The point I'd like to make is that when election time comes around nearly every politician trys to pose as "conservative". They know where the votes are, what the citizenry wants. But when it comes time to do their duty, to pass judgement, to enforce the law, or uphold the Constitution, they somehow find it possible to abide their "fellow North Carolinians" being rapidly replaced by alien interlopers, with or without "papers".
"Rule of law", my ass.
Labels: immigration, law, north carolina, politics
posted by Tanstaafl at 9/20/2010 10:03:00 PM
4 Comments:
"Rule of law, my ass." Pithy and accurate. Here in Mexihinduarabexas, whites continue to flee ever northward while each successive suburb succumbs to the immigrant hordes (local elementary school is now about 65% immigrant - in what is trumpeted as an "excellent" school district). Meantime, Cornyn continues to push the most moderate candidates he can find, Kay Bailout has hardly said a word since her massive repudiation here last time around, and Perry makes kissy-face to the tea party but insists we don't need a law like Arizona's and still strongly supports Texas' law giving illegals in-state tuition. They're all turds, and I too call BULLSHIT.
Lawyers all, they know how to speak with forked tongue.
The Blue and Red Teams are all about money and the big tent. They'll do and say whatever to get the non-white vote because they believe they have us all wrapped up. Time to clean the whole house out.
I wouldn't be so sure of that; my experience with lower level state court judges is that many are honest, upright, and really do their beset to do their judicial duty. They tend not to be ideological and very few will go off the rails and find a right to gay marriage. They will follow the law, even bad law, but that's part of their limited role. I think you'd be surprised what an effectie branch of government the judiciary largely is.
Post a Comment
<< Home