Supreme Ethics Problem (for Court or for media)?

ABC implies Judge Scalia is guilty of some nebulous ethical infraction.

Really? Or is this just another hatchet job on conservatives, as the mainstream press is so known for?

A quick look at the story reveals the latter.

The dominant theme of the story is that Judge Scalia was away during Judge Roberts' swearing in, at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society (a group which supports the Constitutional sharing of powers between the federal government and state governments--a scary thought to liberals, I know, that the states might be anything other than lap dogs and gophers for the federal government). Granted, it would have been good for Scalia to be there for Roberts' swearing in, but it was a prior commitment.

Then we're told:

An examination of the Supreme Court disclosure forms by ABC News found that five of the justices have accepted tens of thousand of dollars in country club memberships.

Really? Which ones? We aren't told. The story does, however, mention that Judge Thomas had received some of these goodies. Okay. Who else? Breyer? Ginsberg? Souter? I guess that little detail wasn't important.

As long as we've smeared Judge Thomas, there's no need to go any farther with this particular line of examination.

And finally, a swipe at the remaining conservative judge: Judge Roberts.

"So I'd like to know, Judge Roberts, if confirmed, whether you will use your power as chief justice to set a high ethical tone," Senator Russell Feingold, D-Wis., asked.

In reply, Roberts said, "Well, I don't think special interests should be allowed to lobby federal judges. Stated that way, I think the answer is clear."

Message: Roberts is a hypocrite.

The mainstream media crown of emperor-without-clothes remains safe.

Newsflash: Innocent Man was NOT Excecuted

DNA tests confirm man executed in Virginia in 1992 was guilty.

Liberals were hoping against hope they'd finally be able to prove someone innocent had been executed by our legal system. But alas, bitter disappointment!

Unlike most countries around the world, here in America we still place such value on human life that we demand that the penalty for the wrongful taking of human life is to pay the ultimate price.

It's really nothing new. God told the human race through Noah after the Flood over 4,000 years ago, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6). This was given to the entire human race, and it was also before the Mosaic covenant...so liberals can't slink away from it by saying it was under the old Law and thus doesn't apply.

Incidentally, Jesus never spoke against capital punishment. The often cited passage from John chapter 8 (the woman caught in adultery) dealt with with an attempt to entrap Jesus, not a pursuit of justice. The adulteress also didn't murder anyone.

"An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight. When my innocence is proven, I hope America will realize the injustice of the death penalty as all other civilized countries have." - Roger Coleman, the man executed in 1992 for raping and killing his sister-in-law and proven definitively by DNA testing on Jan. 12, 2006 to have committed the crime.

Using Coleman's logic, does America now realize the justice of the death penalty?

Microsoft Shuts Down Chinese Blog

Microsoft Corp. has shut down the Internet journal of a Chinese blogger that discussed politically sensitive issues including a recent strike at a Beijing newspaper.

And we're buying billions of dollars from these barbarians. We're sending billions of dollars to fund the Chinese military, which can be used to keep their own people under the heel of communism and will someday be used to kill American military members.

And Microsoft and Yahoo ought to be ashamed of themselves for their complicity in the Chinese assault on freedom. Smut-peddlers whine "censorship" when the people get fed up with their sewage here in America, but this is a true case of what censorship is: government quashing criticism of itself.

Sado-Masochism Might be ‘Sexual Orientation’ says BC Human Rights Tribunal

The BC Human Rights Tribunal is being asked to discover a new “sexual orientation.” The Vancouver Sun reported December 30, that a self-described “pagan” is accusing the Vancouver police of discrimination for refusing him a license to drive a limousine because of his involvement in the “bondage and discipline, domination and submission, sadism and masochism” (BDSM) underworld. A Vancouver man, Peter Hayes, has accused the Vancouver police of illegal discrimination because of his involvement in BDSM.

This is what you get when you embrace moral relativism. This is what you get when you say that sodomy and buggery are normal, natural and healthy--then pretty much anything is normal, natural and healthy. You can't say polygamy is wrong. You can't say bestiality is wrong. You may even find it hard to say sex with children is wrong (NAMBLA), so long as it's "consensual."

Judge gives child-rapist 60-day sentence

Claiming he no longer believes in punishment, a Vermont judge issued a 60-day sentence to a man who confessed to repeatedly raping a girl over a four-year period, beginning when she was 7 years old.

Here's another judge who should be impeached. He's obviously incapable of doing his job.

Anger is like most things: it can be used for good or evil. God gave humans the emotion of anger to spur us to appropriate action. We should be angry in the face of evil: the crime committed against this child should make us angry. We should also be angry in the face of injustice: the dereliction of this judge should make us angry and spur the appropriate people to impeach him.

The Bible even tells us to be angry, adding that we should not let it lead us into sin. Who could argue that Jesus wasn't angry when he denounced the Pharisees as snakes, etc.? Who could argue that Jesus wasn't angry when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip?

.

Idiots...no, morally depraved idiots like this on the bench (and he's far from the only one, maybe just one of the more extreme ones) are why the JAIL amendment got on the ballot. Good people are rapidly losing faith in our justice system--and that undermines the very fabric of our civilization.