Rekjalhew

October 31, 2005

Samuel Alito’s work, in cases related to Civil Rights

by @ 5:09 pm. Filed under The Truth Shall Set you Free!

Here are some cases Samuel Alito was involved in that are Civil Rights related. They are cases that show he does protect Civil Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution. It is important for Conservatives to let the world know this man is a defender of Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights, not a defeater of them!

SCOTUSblog has this write-up about Samuel Alito, which includes a couple of noteworthy cases that he was involved in:

A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), holding that a school district did not provide a high school student with a free and appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when it failed to protect the student from bullying by fellow students who taunted the student based on his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation.

A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about African Americans during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.

Protected a kid from being bullied and also helped a Black person on trial, when a juror was found to be a racist. I wonder if the Liberals will mention this when speaking about his work in regards to Civil Rights? I say good for him regarding his work on these cases!

Related post: Bush picks Samuel Alito for the US Supreme Court! Good job! No more swing vote!

update (10/31/2005 4:21PM ET): Here are some details from the case involving a Black man that was on trial:

During voir dire proceedings in the Williamses? 1985 trial, the trial court asked two questions regarding racial bias:
Do you personally believe that blacks as a group are more likely to commit crimes of a violent nature involving firearms?

Can you listen to and judge the testimony of a black person in the same fashion as the testimony of a white person, giving each its deserved credibility?

All the jurors who were selected to serve answered ?no? to the first question and ?yes? to the second. The jury convicted both Williams and his brother and sentenced them to death.

In 1994, Ronald Williams, represented by new counsel, filed a state Post-Conviction Relief Act (?PCRA?) petition in which he contended that members of the jury had lied during voir dire when they answered the questions about racial prejudice. In support of this motion, Williams relied on a new affidavit by Montgomery and another affidavit by Jewel Hayes, who had testified at trial.

Montgomery?s affidavit stated:
[W]hen I was Juror No. 9 in the trial of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Ronald Williams and Raymond Williams . . . I was called ?a nigger lover? and other derogatory names by other members of the jury. Remarks were made to me such as ?I hope your daughter marries one of them? . . . . The jurors were given information by an alternate juror who was told by [the] Sheriff . . . that the ?men were wanted in other states and if we don?t get them another state would? and ?that Raymond [Williams, Appellant?s brother and co-defendant] was going to die anyway as he shot and crippled a man for life in Michigan. The man lived and was able and willing to testify against Raymond, so his black ass was cooked anyway.?
App. 6a.

Hayes?s affidavit averred:
Subsequent to the proceedings in this case . . . I ran into Juror Number Two (2) in the lobby of the Courthouse. . . . Upon seeing me he stated ?All niggers do is cause trouble? I am not sure whether this was stated directly to me but it was stated for my benefit and loudly enough for me to hear and to get a rise out of me. During our confrontation he also stated ?I should go back where I came from.?
App. 7a.

I’m all for killers getting the death penalty, but if the jurors harbor racial hatred as some of them in this case obviously did, they lied during voir dire proceedings and could not honestly be objective in their review of the case.

Bush picks Samuel Alito for the US Supreme Court! Good job! No more swing vote!

by @ 12:55 pm. Filed under The Truth Shall Set you Free!

Today President Bush made a good pick in selecting Samuel Alito as the new nominee for the US Supreme Court! He has a record that shows he was well qualified for the position. In this selection Bush showed that he really wanted the best available and not a candidate that might fulfill superficial desires outside of solid respect for the US Constitution!

Justice Alito is a candidate that was praised by Senators in 1990, when he was nominated to the federal appeals court by President George H.W. Bush. Then even many Liberal Senators gave him their full support. It will be interesting to see how they treat him this time around and how many of them attempt to distance themselves from their prior comments about him.

Some decisions of note that Samuel Alito was involved in:

Among his noteworthy opinions was his lone dissent in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

“The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems ? such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition ? that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion,” Alito wrote.

In a 1999 case, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, the 3rd Circuit ruled 3-0 that Muslim police officers in the city can keep their beards. The police had made exemption in its facial hair policy for medical reasons (a skin condition known as pseudo folliculitis barbae) but not for religious reasons.

Alito wrote the opinion, saying, “We cannot accept the department’s position that its differential treatment of medical exemptions and religious exemptions is premised on a good-faith belief that the former may be required by law while the latter are not.”
In July 2004, the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law prohibiting student newspapers from running ads for alcohol was unconstitutional. At issue was Act 199, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code passed in 1996 that denied student newspapers advertising revenue from alcoholic beverages.

Alito said the law violated the First Amendment rights of the student newspaper, The Pitt News, from the University of Pittsburgh.

“If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment,” Alito wrote.

In 1999, Alito was part of a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler. At issue was a holiday display in Jersey City. The court held that the display didn’t violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because in addition to a creche and a menorah, it also had a Frosty the Snowman and a banner hailing diversity.

In the case of Homar v. Gilbert in 1996, Alito wrote the dissenting opinion that a state university didn’t violate the due process rights of a campus police officer when they suspended him without pay after they learned he had been arrested on drug charges.

One of the most notable opinions was Alito’s dissent in the 1996 case of Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination case. Alito wrote that a plaintiff in such a case should not be able to withstand summary judgment just by casting doubt on an employer’s version of the story.

In Fatin v. INS (1993), Alito joined the majority in ruling that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish eligibility based on citing that she would be persecuted for gender and belief in feminism.

In a 1996 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a federal law banning the possession of machine guns, Alito argued for greater state rights in reasoning that Congress had no authority to regulate private gun possession.

He has also gone on record as saying:

“Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide (cases) aren’t too descriptive. … Judges should be judges. They shouldn’t be legislators, they shouldn’t be administrators.”

He gets a solid THUMBS UP from me! I support the Alito nomination!

On the negative side of politics:
New York Senator Charles Schumer is trying to compare how Jusitce Alito might “sit” with the court to Rosa Parks when she “sat” for justice! As usual Schumer has no bottom in how low he will dig, in an effort to trash anyone that does not tow his Liberal line. Rosa Parks fought for her Constitutional rights to be protected. As true Constitutionalists like Justice Alito do, but people like low down Chucky never seem to understand that! Given we know Chuck would like for the federal government to continue forcing states to allow people to kill their own babies in the womb! As usual Senator Schumer, you disgust me. But your anger at this nomination helps me know for certain that he is a good pick!

update (10/31/2005 12:02PM ET): Hugh Hewitt has more about Chucky!

Solid proof that Iran wants to destroy more than just Isreal!

by @ 12:05 am. Filed under Terrorism and War

Blog “A Daily Briefing on Iran” has the facts that American media never mentioned! The proof that Iran is openly putting out to the world, but our media chooses to cover up!

It is like the American media is betraying us by covering up statements of our enemy!

Why the average American takes issue with Iran wanting to destroy Israel. I do believe the average American would be even more upset if they knew Iranian President Ayatollah Khomeini spoke of doing away with America too!

Related post: San Francisco Chronicle bias exposed!

October 30, 2005

Lawrence Guyot’s response to Kamau Kambon’s comments. Not as strong a rebuke as I first thought!

by @ 10:35 pm. Filed under Nuts on Parade

Lawrence GuyotIn an update to my prior post about Kamau Kambon, I mentioned that Lawrence Guyot spoke up to denounce the comments. But I had not heard the actual words he said. Now that I have heard them for myself, I must adjust my statements about Mr. Guyot a bit. I guess I should have considered that it was Opio Sokoni who said that Mr. Guyot denounced the comments. And I did see in another video, that Mr. Guyot was getting up just after the hate filled rant by Kambon. Knowing that Mr. Guyot has been less radical than people like Kambon and the fact Opio said that Mr. Guyot denounced the comments, I figured Mr. Guyot offered a strong rebuke and nothing more. But tonight I found this copy of the video that has the hate filled rant, along with Mr. Guyot’s follow-up. (The link has been removed because the site removed the video)

While Mr. Guyot did in fact denounce Kambon’s comments as “racial fanaticism”, but he also made some pretty insane comments himself! Several that I take issue with. Below I’ve attempted to quickly transcribe all of his comments that were made after Kambon’s.

Everyone of us will die and everyone of us who’s Black will be faced by our ancestors who were slaves. And the first question they’re gonna ask is what did you do with your freedom to free other Black people. THEY’RE NOT GONNA ASK US DID WHITE PEOPLE KILL US, CAUSE WHITE PEOPLE KILLED THEM! Ladies and Gentleman we don’t have time for racial fanaticism. We are in a country that is trying to destroy us in every way possible and we must use every weapon that we can think about. And we must create new ones. But in the interim, if your life span is not spent empowering yourself politically, economically and physiologically, then don’t blame White people. Because the only person guilty is you. I laid out a plan and some would say well that’s a digression. What are you doing to empower people like you? what are you doing to fight for them? Because I assure you, our ancestors who were slaves will ask you that as soon as they welcome you where ever you’re going after you leave here.

After his comments there was applause.

OK so he also has these delusions of America trying to destroy Blacks. I assume he means Whites trying to destroy Blacks. Being Black myself I’ve found that every Black I know that had issues in life brought them on themselves via their own actions. But I guess they feel I’m the psychotic for feeling America is a great place to live :D . Funny how more Africans are coming to America than ever before and most are from West African countries. The same nations that were trading fellow Africans into the hands of slave traders headed for America back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Although Kambon recommends an action that Mr. Guyot disagrees with. They both do agree with this notion that America is trying to kill Black people. Which is simply INSANE!

I did not hear what Mr. Guyot had to say in his plan, but I’m hoping that his mention of weapons was not used in the violent sense during his prior remarks. I’m assuming that he was speaking of Blacks working to empower themselves. Because at least he’s saying not to blame White people when someone is not doing for themselves.

I also find it interesting how many Blacks only view slaves as their ancestors. Just looking at someone like Mr. Guyot you can tell he probably has more parts of his DNA that passed through Europe than are solely from Africa. Although we know humanity did start in Africa, I think there are parts of Mr. Guyot’s own heritage that he’s ignoring. And that is usually how these psychotics operate. They only want to think of Black and Africa, while ignoring any and all else as evil or something they simply do not wish to associate themselves with. No Black person since Paul Lawrence Dunbar has been acknowledged as having full African blood. If Mr. Guyot feels ancestral heritage from his DNA will greet him at death, he had better be ready to meet more than former slaves!

If you’re gonna live here love it or leave it! The airlines have flights daily to help you solve your little “problem” if you feel America is out to destroy you!

Did Ashley Smith know alleged courthouse shooter Brian Nichols before March 11? Probably not.

by @ 5:58 pm. Filed under Questionable Items

A friend of Brian Nichols says that Brian has told him that he did know Ashley Smith before that deadly day in March. But this friend has a suspect past and investigations of a relationship turned up nothing.

You can watch the video report, that includes Brian Nichols’ friend Maurice Lovemore and Ashley Smith here.

For a moment it leads one to think maybe there was some connection that nobody knew about. And hearing quotes about Ashley doing drugs with him like:

How many crack heads do you know that’s gonna allow you to get high in front of them on their supply? Come on man…

It sounds convincing. However, all investigations done by police to determine a link between the two have come up empty!

Investigators doubtful Nichols knew Smith

Gwinnett County police invested hours of detective work scouring Smith’s background. Investigators specifically searched for any evidence that she had known Nichols before the courthouse shooting suspect held her hostage.

They found none.

“She was very honest and forthcoming,” said Gwinnett County Detective Steve Shaw. “There’s no indication they crossed paths.”

Shaw, who said Smith told police she gave drugs to Nichols during the ordeal, says he combed through Smith’s whereabouts going back several years. He cross-examined that information with Nichols’ past, hunting for any link between them.

“It’s nonexistent,” he said.

Also how credible an individual is Maurice Lovemore? Not very credible at all!

DeKalb County court records indicate Lovemore was the defendant in a 2003 child-support case there. According to records, the case wrapped up with a judge ordering monthly child support payments of $179. No contact information for the child’s mother was listed in court documents. Fulton County court records show a 1998 civil judgment in the amount of $400. Lovemore apparently owed a Knoxville towing company, records show.

A search of public records databases indicates Lovemore may have used a number of last names, including Jones, Harris and Harrison. The last name of the child for whom Lovemore was ordered to pay child support is Harrison, according to the DeKalb court records.

Shaw says he doubts the story Lovemore told on television.

“My personal opinion is whoever this guy is on TV was just running his mouth,” Shaw said. “It sounds like somebody’s looking for their 15 minutes of fame.”

Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter said Smith was interviewed both at the scene and in the office, and was consistent throughout the questioning.

“There’s no evidence that shows they knew each other,” Porter said.

So the story has no provable basis in fact and the man telling the story is known to have used multiple aliases. I think an event like Brian Nichols coming to your house with a gun is enough to make any drug junkie kick the habit!

OK, now that this bogus claim has been put to rest, I just wish the trials would wrap up quickly so when if Brian Nichols is found guilty he can be put on death row where he belongs! And when if he ends up on death row I hope his stay is a short one!

People killed during the events that took place, allegedly by Brian Nichols:

People beaten during the events that took place, allegedly by Brian Nichols:

And I must say, a 51 year-old grandmother working as a sheriff’s deputy is a prime example of why state imposed “diversity” is simply a bad idea. Let THE BEST have the job regardless of what they look like. So what if they all might be young men! I’m very sad that a beast beat her like that, but I don’t think any 51 year old grandmothers would qualify as “the best” when it comes to Sheriff’s Deputy applicants! The whole mess started with her being beaten and her pistol stolen…allegedly by Brian Nichols.

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

34 queries. 0.296 seconds