This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Monday, May 17, 2010

Who Cares About the Supreme Court?

It's disappointing to see the coverage of the new Supreme Court justice and the confirmation hearings. It's all one big evil fnord reinforcing "It matters what these nine people do."

I noticed that the current Supreme Court nominee and the previous nominee have the parasitic personality type. Most politicians, like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, have the parasitic personality type. Most people don't notice, due to their pro-State brainwashing. The Supreme Court exists to protect the interests of parasites, more than to protect productive workers.

The only reason the Supreme Court matters is that their orders are treated as new laws. State thugs will enforce these laws without questioning them. Lower-ranking judges will follow the Supreme Court's orders.

Ironically, a Supreme Court judge spends more time writing laws than most Congressmen! Supreme Court decisions are like new laws. The justices usually carefully read the decisions. Most Congressmen let lobbyists write laws for them. There's no way a Congressmen could actually carefully read every law that Congress passes.

Every bad law that erodes individual freedom has been approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is *NOT* concerned with "What is right and what is wrong." They are only concerned with "What is legal?" The Supreme Court has the final say in resolving all disputes. By definition, whatever the Supreme Court says is legal.

A pro-State troll says "It's good that the Supreme Court has the final decision. This prevents chaos." The problem is that the Supreme Court resolves all disputes, even when one party is the State or another political insider. For example, the Supreme Court has approved the laws that limit the liability of BP and Transocean and Haliburton. This encourages chaos, because insiders can commit crimes and negligence without any negative consequences.

That is the inherent evil of the State legal system, compared to a free market system. State insiders get to resolve all disputes, even when one party to the dispute is a State insider. This causes government to behave like a criminal gang rather than be the protector of freedom.

You don't get picked to be a Supreme Court judge unless you're thoroughly pro-State brainwashed. That's the reason there's so much focus on making sure that the judge will make the "correct" decisions. Back when President Roosevelt was pushing the New Deal, some Supreme Court justices resisted. Now, the Supreme Court rubberstamps most bad laws.

In the confirmation hearings, they'll never ask "Is the IRS Constitutional?" or "Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional?" or "Should defense attorneys be barred from mentioning jury nullification?" or "Do biased jury selection procedures defeat the true purpose of trial by jury?" These are all unstated hidden assumptions. Every Congressman and Federal judge knows the "correct" answer to these questions. The worst laws are endorsed by almost every politician and State parasite.

If you ask a State parasite "Should you have more power or less power?", of course they want more power. Congress and the President choose the Supreme Court. Of course, they will make decisions that favor more State power.

The job of a Supreme Court judge is not to protect individual freedom. Their job is to make fancy-sounding excuses for increasing State power. If you're a pro-State troll, these excuses are believable. A "Constitutional law expert" doesn't debate "What is Constitutional?" Instead, they debate "What is the Supreme Court going to rule next?"

A Congressmen says "We don't have to worry if this law is Constitutional. The Supreme Court will object if we're wrong." A Supreme Court judge says "Of course this law is Constitutional. Otherwise, Congress would not have passed it." In this manner, evil occurs and nobody seems responsible. In the debate surrounding healthcare "reform", some critics asked "Is this law Constitutional?" The Congressmen reacted as if that was a silly, irrelevant, and insulting joke.

The Supreme Court judges are the high priests for the State. The hype surrounding a new Supreme Court judge seems a lot like the hype surrounding a new pope. Government is a crazy religious cult. It's a very successful cult, having brainwashed the vast majority that it is the One True Way to organize a stable society.

The correct attitude regarding the Supreme Court is "Why should I care what those nine pathetic losers do?" Their decisions are treated as new laws. The problem is that the vast majority will obey their orders without questioning it. The Supreme Court doesn't protect individual freedom. Every bad law has been approved by the Supreme Court.


Anonymous said...

But I hear they get to design their own robes. That is pretty cool.

Anonymous said...

Tony Bliar of the Nu Lie-bour Zanu Party created a supreme court in the UK. The Daily Mail stated that the Supreme Court is higher than Parliament.

Parliament is elected, but the Supreme Court judges are not elected by the tax-payers.

There are many problems with unelected judges having more power than the elected Parliament.

For one if you don't like a law, you can complain to your MP. Mostly your MP won't do anything, but there is a chance the MP might talk about it in the House of Parliament or make a private members bill.

With an unelected judge making bad case law there is nothing you can do.

Case law can be pretty stupid.


So you just have to waive a bit of paper under someone's nose saying they owe you 1 million pounds and then you go to your local court to get it enforced.

Just see the money roll it via crap case law.

Or don't even bother going to court. Just get a solicitor to send a letter laced with threats.

If you fight it, it will cost you thousands of pounds and months to years of your time.

The legal system is just a money spinner for a bunch of clowns that know nothing about morality or ethics or the dangers of making bad case law.

Once case law has been made, loads of bent solicitors will jump on the bandwagon and make threats using the bad case law.

It is a cancer. The Law Society acts as a trade union and does not stamp on bent solicitors.

Anonymous said...

Don't you think you are a little paranoid my dear? You are quite obviously suffering from some sort of delusion.

Anonymous said...

I believe a leaked letter from the lawyer of a famous actor's wife, stated that the point of civil law suits is harassment.

If you have ever run a business in a Western country you will get sued over something pointless and silly at some point.

Despite the lawsuit being silly, it can take up to a year and tens of thousands of pounds to resolve.

The whole point is not to go to court but to waste so much of some one's time and money, it is simpler just to hand over a wad of cash to settle the case out of court.

In reality a lawyer won't sue over just an unsigned contract, but he/she will sue over 10 bullshit things in the hope that something will stick.

I've mentioned this before but a tea and sandwich cafeteria called "The Tea Box" located in England was sued by a chain of coffee shops in Germany called "Kaffehausen" over trademark infringement. You may notice the name "The Tea Box" is nothing like "Kaffehausen" and that they are located in different countries.

This legal action took 18 months to resolve. Any idiot can see "The Tea Box" is nothing like "Kaffehausen".

Is this stupid enough for you?

I also recommend the previous commenter check out

Anonymous said...

>Don't you think you are a little
>paranoid my dear? You are quite
>obviously suffering from some sort
>of delusion.

It isn't paranoia. In recent times, one poor guy had to spend two years and several hundred thousand pounds in court just to define the meaning of a few words in a libel case. The whole thing might have been silly as they should have just got a statistician in the court to say if the experimental evidence was good statistical proof for what was said. But as the lawyers pissed around studying law instead of maths and science, they wouldn't know about that. Even though they don't have any real world skills and can't even properly interpret experimental and clinical evidence it doesn't stop them making wodges of cash.

But back to my original point about unsigned contracts being enforced in the UK. Two men had a business. One man got ill or something and did not participate in the business for a while. He came back and wanted some sort of share of the business. I don't know the exact details. Anyway a solicitor sent this guy a contract to sign, but he never did sign it. A court ruled that even though he never signed the contract he should be bound by it, because they thought he ACTED like he had signed it.


So you don't actually need to sign a contract for it to be valid.

Now maybe there are a lot of details about the case I don't know about.

But the thing is that slimeball solicitors will read about unsigned contracts being enforced in the UK and go about with a straight face trying to enforce unsigned contracts in different situations.

I would hope all this is bullshit. Of course these slimeball lawyers never submit their cases to court.

They slime and slime. They send out letters full of threats and don't even sign them. Obviously to avoid blowback.

It is all about frightening someone in a way that seems official and legal, but has little or no legal merit.

This unfortunate case has eroded contract law in the UK, because of slimeballs that try to extend the ruling to different matters.

Anything to do with a legal matter won't get resolved for months or years and will take a lot of money.

The legal merit is beside the point.

As I said before even two names that are totally different can be defined by a lawyer to infringe trademark.

Anonymous said...

Please look at the web page below.

The article says "Harrods" are suing "Hollands Cafe Lounge" over copyright infringement.

I did not know that individual words and names could be copyrighted.

Short phrases, names and dictionary words cannot be copyrighted. You cannot copyright the word "dog". You cannot copyright the name "Paul".

So I don't understand how lawyers can sue of copyright when copyright is for things of artistic or literary merit such as books, songs etc.

Surely they should be suing for trademark infringement. But they are not according to the article.

Either the article is wrong, but maybe these lawyers feel asleep during the relevant lecture at school.

Even then "Hollands Cafe Lounge" cannot be mistaken to "Harrods". Nobody in their right mind could mistake one name for the other.

Harrods is a shop. "Hollands Cafe Lounge" is a family run restaurant. They are in different cities. Nobody could mistake one for the other.

Please someone explain to me how this is a valid lawsuit?

Surely lawyers don't sue over junk???

Didn't the Germany coffee shop chain "Kaffehausen" sue "The Tea Box" in England? The lawsuit took 18 MONTHS TO BE RESOLVED. How can totally different names in totally different countries cause people to mistake a chain of coffee shops for one tea and sandwich place in a different country?

Please tell me lawyers don't sue over complete and utter rubbish.

Say my name is "Peter"? Can I sue "FSK's Guide to Reality" over copyright just because I think the name "Peter" is similar to "FSK".

Can you really sue over just anything?

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at