|
 |
 Copyright ©2003-2010 Anthony Canales |
|
 Anthony Canales is the President of the San Fernando Valley NRA Member’s Council. He works as a Quality Control Manager in Glendale, California. He is married with one son. The opinions expressed in 'News Briefs' belong solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Rifle Association of America or the NRA Members' Councils of California. |
|
Home
12-09-2009
12-18-2008
12-31-2007 |
|
August 11, 2003 “…You, who are on the road Must have a code That you
can live by. Because the past Is just a
good bye. Their
father's hell did slowly go by, The one they fix, The one
you'll know by. If they
told you, you would cry, And know
they love you. Can't know the fears That your
elders grew by, Help them with your youth, They seek the truth Before they
can die. Their
children's hell will slowly go by, The one they fix, The one
you'll know by. If they told
you, you would cry, And know they love you…”
-Lyrics from the song “Teach Your Children”, by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
To All, Perhaps the legal classes just do not understand the high place one’s children occupy, certain UCI professors notwithstanding. Otherwise, one would have to assume that there are a number of jurists and lawyers across the Fruited Plain who must think it acceptable to allow children to have access to illegal narcotics:
Priorities: Jonathon Turley writes in today’s Los Angeles Times about the continuing debate over determinate sentencing at the Federal level.
Turley’s approach to the debate is to insinuate that Attorney General Ashcroft is trying to remake the Department of Justice and the Judiciary over so as to make the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover proud. This last is indicated by the apparent disapproval of AG Ashcroft’s recent memo call for Federal attorneys to “report in” when a judge “departs downward” under Federal sentencing guidelines.
What is more, Turley seems concerned with the charge that AG Ashcroft and the Bush Administration are attempting to somehow corral a judiciary that has the benefits of lifetime tenure without being subject to re-election.
In reality, the Turley argument is a straw man for the current controversy over judicial selection. As much as certain members of the Senate are making subservience to Roe v. Wade mandatory, other political players are attempting to find out which members of the bench are willing to hand out milder sentences than prescribed for by the People’s Elected Representatives. Given that this may lead to a higher crime rate (which in itself has political consequences as well as the destructive effect on any victims), one can most likely see the rationale for the DOJ’s review. After all, advancement up the rungs of the Judicial career ladder are no more guaranteed here than in the private sector, and for the same reasons.
Turley notes, for example, that judges have been able in the past to “tailor” sentences for suspects based upon cooperation with Federal authorities, or various other “mitigating” circumstances. This may be all well and good, except it can be dealt with just as easily by prosecutors by the charges they wish to file, rather than give an almost unlimited discretion to the Judiciary.
Turley also tries to make his point regarding Ashcroft’s purported dislike for “judicial flexibility” by revisiting the Ronnie White case. But Turley fails to mention certain aspects related to Judge White’s record, and as to the reasons why the former Senator Ashcroft opposed President Clinton’s nomination of Judge White for the Federal Bench.
For example, Turley does not make note that Judge White had produced his record of some 17 death penalty reversals in his first four years while on the Missouri Supreme Court Bench (Ashcroft had listed this factoid in the debate over Judge White in the Senate in October of 1999).
What is more, Turley failed to mention that the opposition to the “widely respected” jurist was more widespread, what with criticism coming from Missouri law enforcement circles. Judge White was the only vote out of all the members of the Missouri Supreme Court to favor retrial for James Johnson, who had been convicted for the murder of the wife of Moniteau County, Missouri, Sheriff Ken Jones and two other deputies. White’s rationale for a retrial was that Johnson’s legal counsel’s selection of a post-traumatic stress syndrome defense (Johnson was a helicopter mechanic with the Missouri National Guard where he served a four month tour in Viet Nam in 1970) represented inadequate council that was somehow prejudicial to the defendant.
As such, Turley’s defense of Judge White is predicated on the public believing that defendant Johnson’s ability to specifically select law enforcement victims, at various and separate locations across Moniteau County, was somehow inadequately presented by defense council as a psychological malady. This in itself defies common sense, and is part and parcel of the case for rejection of Judge White for the Federal District Court Bench.
In reality, the defenders of judicial discretion towards determinate sentencing would have one and all believe that the judiciary is up to the task. Unfortunately, the press is full of reports of a Judiciary that rules for the unconstitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, as currently constituted. Or of reports that certain judges seem to favor liability of manufacturers for the criminal acts and misdeeds of others. Or even reports of certain judges who seem to have opined that the People at the time of the Constitution somehow did not trust themselves with the rights and responsibilities of bearing arms on behalf of civic order. But when these same judges request discretionary authority for a lessening of time under incarceration for those who would sell heroin to children, or help maintain the status of the narcotraficantes as a scourge to the Colombian people, or even to effectively reduce the business costs of those drug industry soldiers who find it “necessary” to engage in gunplay in minority neighborhoods, then one must take pause and consider other alternatives. It may just be that, for the sake of the children, the public must resist the blandishments of the legal elites until such time as common sense is exhibited more clearly.
Story bases may be found at: https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/17/203521.shtml
The Opera Lady With The Viking Helmet Has Not Sung Yet: Daniel Weintraub continues to inform those who inhabit the Blogosphere as to the latest skinny on the California Recall.
In essence, the Entire Punditocracy (including the polling groups at Time, CNN/USAToday/Gallup, and Hart Teeter) has currently embraced the idea that Gray Davis is, to put it mildly, toast (White, no mayo, with smoked turkey.).
But before everyone starts breaking out the Domain Chandon Blanc de Noirs, folks are reminded that Ole Wile E. has taken out one heck of an insurance policy.
The only question remaining is whether those “real bullets” that Bob Mulholland seems to be loading up on are really intended for Cruz Bustamante.
For the public’s consideration, think of the following observations:
-It is being reported by the various pundits that the Guv and The Viceroy-In-Waiting are not on the best of terms. Given that Bustamante went for the Key to the Little Governor’s Room some 5 nanoseconds after Schwarzenegger’s decision was made public, one might be able to construe an actual dislike between the two seasoned pols.
-The Davis strategy to this day remains that of “NO on The Recall”. Said strategy could theoretically become enhanced, and thus more viable, should Bustamante’s Legislative history get some “extra special” consideration by the press. Given that the Governor has some of the best “opposition researchers” in the business (Algore had to let them go after the 2000 Election), these next few weeks may prove to be highly illuminating.
-The impact of the “surprise” Schwarzenegger announcement notwithstanding, the odds of partisan Democrats voting to hand over the governorship of California to any Republican (No matter how well connected to the Kennedy Empire or to Hollyweird) are basically slim and none. As such, the absence of a viable Democrat candidate for Question 2 on the Recall ballot is more likely to enhance Governor Davis’ political survivability.
60 days is a long time in politics, especially given the nature of the 24/7 news cycle and the minute-by-minute updates on the Internet. Cruz Bustamante is going to have to have the senses (and the 9 lives) of a cat if he intends to make it past October 7 with his political integument in one piece. Let us hope that a virtual lifetime of “napping” (More like being asleep at the switch) will stand him in good stead during this upcoming moment in California history.
Story basis may be found at: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/000389.html
Another Fine Mess: Margaret Wente writes in the (Toronto) Globe and Mail, about the recent increase in firearms related crimes in the Great White North.
It seems that, despite having spent nearly 1 billion Canadian dollars on a faulty gun registration scheme, criminal gangs continue to stage their own re-enactments of 1920’s Chicago on the streets of Toronto.
Only the recent spate of shootings and violence seem to be related to an increase of “black-on-black” crime among residents of Jamaican, Caribbean, or Somali origins.
Specifically, Ms. Wente notes that the “root causes” of the violence are as follows:
“…In fact, the gang problems in Toronto, Ottawa, and other cities aren’t a race problem at all. They are an immigration-control problem, an illegal-handgun problem, a drug-crimes problem, a fatherlessness problem, and a problem of certain specific sub- cultures…”
Where this leaves ordinary, law-abiding Canadians remains a mystery to the rest of the North American continent. It is for certain that all of the other factors besides firearms possession, out of the above causes, cannot be made illegal or subject to registration. In essence, the typical response of the bureaucracy (draconian firearms laws) has failed yet again. Perhaps it is time for the Chretien government to realize that their efforts at gun registration are a bad job, are being ignored by provinces and citizens, and is thus not worth putting additional funding into.
After all, the cost of the National Health Service is going through the roof, and the waiting lines for basic services are getting longer by the minute. Perhaps discretion could be considered the better part of valor (not to mention political expediency), and the whole risky gun control scheme can be dispensed with by Boxing Day 2003. After all, there are only some 137 shopping days left.
Story may be found at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales SFVMC-NRA
© 2003 Anthony Canales All rights reserved. |
|
