HARRIET MIERS: A VIRGIN-AT-LAW

 

 

 

David R. Usher
October 23, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

If the Senate doesn�t lay down before pharaoh, but instead seriously vets Harriet Miers, they will find a candidate that is a virgin-at-law. The paucity of information about her, which exists for lack of judicial maturity as an arbiter of law, speaks for itself.

Her puerile views in support of �gay rights� miss the fact that gay politics is not about equal rights � it is about radical feminists taking over the marriage contract, as a matter of �preference�, at the wholesale expense of men, as I have covered in my previous articles Why Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional and Why Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional, Too.

A more glaring example of Mier�s virginesque thinking is her writings about a courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas in 1992, involving a man who was irate over a ridiculous child support order:

"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs." �

"Punishment of wrongdoers should be swift and sure. Only then can the criminal justice system serve as an effective deterrent. Those who would choose a rule of man rather than the rule of law must not escape fitting penalty. Again, the lack of adequate resources to support an overburdened criminal justice system looms as a reality. Punishment may come swift and sure in the Fort Worth slayings case because of their notoriety. But we cannot forget the other cases crying for justice languishing in courts throughout Texas and the nation.

The principles Mier�s cites are correct (perhaps lifted from a first-year law school text). But they are not operative by themselves.

The case she wrote about involved a man who was upset about a ridiculous child support order, for which he was being sued. And he is one of many men who snapped after being tragically abused by the family courts system.

Here are a few other previously normal men who �inexplicably� went berserk in the wake of obvious judicial mischief. Kenneth Baumruk shot his wife through the head in the St. Louis County courthouse after the judge announced he was going to give a house that was clearly his under Missouri dissolution law to his divorcing wife. Richard Curran, the police chief in Bernville, PA gunned his ex-spouse down after being denied reduction of an absurd child support arrearage. Then there are approximately 18,000 men who each year turn their angst inward and commit suicide after being looted and socially lynched in family courts.

The point Harriet Miers missed completely is this: The buck does not start or stop at punishing those who revolt violently after being cruelly abused by family courts. The buck starts with what the judge did that may have ignited a serious public safety problem in the first place.

Judges who consistently abuse men in their courts by casually violating statutes and rules of court (for the unspoken purpose of advancing predatory feminism and protecting the state from the subsequent welfare problem) are the instigators of these horrid situations. No-fault divorce is not �just�, nor is is �no fault�, where it is merely a fa�ade for the business of encouraging and expanding the system of predatory entitled father-absence.

Certainly, there are a few nuts out there who will go nuts anyway. But when we see many previously-normal men �snap� and set out to start a microcosmic version of the American Revolution, it is clear these cases must be fully investigated in public and judges who abused men removed from the bench.

Law and order must first spring from the bench and the legal profession. Natural civil order and respect for law by citizens cannot exist within the present state of everyday corruption within the family courts.

Federal courts and U.S. Supreme Court needs appointees who live they the high standards they lay down; appointees who are finally willing to entertain cases involving abuse of federal funds and U.S. code by family courts and funded NGO�s, and who are also willing to entertain litigation over the constitutionality of deeply-sexist federal laws such as the Violence Against Women Act.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

There is also a great need for states to establish independent standing commissions comprised of non-lawyer citizens to openly investigate all complaints made about judges to the state bar association, and issue public reports when judges are found to be incapable of behaving in a manner befitting the Robe. Most of us know that state bar associations are as incapable of disciplining their own judges as Wall Street would be at disciplining its own industry if it were made the sole arbiter of its own operations.

Law cannot belong to the people so long as the Bar is the fourth, and the only unelected branch of government, with proprietary control over the other three.

� 2005 David Usher - All Rights Reserved