Justice?

Justice is supposed to be blind, I never knew it was supposed to be anonymous and ignorant too.

A 17-year-old girl who struck and killed a motorcyclist during a hit-and-run crash last year in Des Moines "made a series of poor decisions" but she should not be prosecuted as an adult, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The case involves Esther Chisala and her "series of poor decisions" that started, just days before her 18th birthday, when she bought the car without her (mother's) permission and then disobeyed her mother who had begged her daughter not to drive it.

Chisala ran away from home after being instructed not to drive the car and she drove without having a driver's license and without buying any insurance.

Chisala's next "series of poor decisions" occurred while she was "going too fast and hit (a van belonging to Iowa Homeless Youth Services) and was trying to get away."

Chisala's successive "series of poor decisions" proved fatal to James Miller, as Chisala ran a red light and hit the gentleman on the motorcycle.

From there Chisala's "series of poor decisions" included leaving the scene of the second accident she caused and proceeding to "...hit a light pole about a half block up the road. Hit a light pole, spun sideways and" get "out of her car and started to walk away."

It was only through the interjection of two citizens, honored this month at an annual Crime Fighter Banquet, that Chisala was detained and escorted back to the scene of one of her "series of poor decisions".

One month after all of this came another in a "series of poor decisions" courtesy of District Judge Carol Egly, who decided Chisala should not be tried as an adult.

On appeal of that ruling is how the Iowa Supreme Court became involved.

In their anonymous (unsigned) decision the Supreme Court stated...

"At the time of the accident, Chisala had no prior involvement with the court system".

"Although she had some previous problems at school, there had been no 'office referrals' for three years, and she was on schedule to graduate from high school."

Really?

Then why would the then vice principal at Scavo Campus (an alternative high school in Des Moines) say Chisala, "was enrolled at Scavo last school year (2007), but attended classes through Future Pathways, a program that helps students recover credits. She was classified as a senior last year, but didn't graduate, he said. Chisala had not yet registered for classes this school year. (2008).

The Supreme Court ruling cited testimony of a school counselor who described Chisala as a model student with no behavioral problems and good attendance.

Reads like somebody's lying to me!

My snarky side thinks Marsha Ternus had a huge hand in this and wants to remain anonymous because of the recent events involving her child.

For all intents and purpose Esther Chisela was an adult, she bought a car and enlisted in the Iowa National Guard the day before her accidents.

The Iowa Supreme Court knew this, Chisela should be tried as an adult and punished as one.

For the Iowa Supreme Court, this is another in a "series of poor decisions" and the scientific community is united in that fact.

James Miller could not be reached for comment.

Law Dogs

In what is obviously a concerted effort by Dummycrats to play politics with the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare (Under Attack), President Obama once again attacked the Supreme Court.

Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress".

A vote of 219–212 in the House doesn't constitute a "strong majority" and the scientific community is united in that fact.

The President also warned that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism".

I'm no constitutional scholar, but in my mind "judicial activism" is when the judiciary writes something into the Constitution or law that isn't there.

Such as Roe V. Wade when the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."


Granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in this country by citing the 14th Amendment.


Or when a federal judge ruled the Treasury Department must change currencies so blind people can use them citing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Ruling on the constitutionality of a law is what the judicial branch does, and the Supreme Court of the United States has been doing since 1803.

Final Judgment?

The public has been lead to believe that there was no other course for the Iowa Supreme Court to take in their 2009 gay marriage ruling.

Onetime Justice Michael Streit was the latest to mouth that mantra with

“We didn’t take the law into our own hands,” Streit said. “The court had a duty to interpret the constitution and uphold the law. I don’t feel we did anything wrong. We had no politics involved.”

I noted last week (American Idiot), the court didn't even have to take the case and lo and behold this case shows I was correct.

Iowa Supreme Court declines to hear Creston police rape case

Another option the Supreme Court had was to refer the case to the Court of Appeals.

This certainly gives credence to those that believe the justices to be activists and the scientific community is united in that fact.

As long as I've mentioned the Supreme Court and Justices, I wonder why the concern now about who potential justices make political contributions to?

High court nominee Waterman was Branstad campaign donor

I don't recall such media scrutiny, only I and a few other bloggers remarked on it, when The Pickle or the Big Lug Nut made their choices of Brent Appel and David Baker during the previous 12 years.

























Probably a D and R thing.

The Court Jesters

For me, numerous rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court makes less sense than the Danny Kaye pellet with the poison bit and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Their latest publicized ruling has given greater protection for parolees under Iowa's constitution.

Supreme Court says Bettendorf room search was improper

During a routine check of a motel, a police officer was informed a felon parolee was a registered guest.

The officer went to the room and told the parolee he was going to search the room.

The officer found a crack pipe, cocaine and prescription drugs that did not belong to the parolee.

The parolee did not consent to the search, at first, and was advised the room would be searched with or without his consent because he had signed his parole agreement that the Iowa Court of Appeals said diminished his Fourth Amendment protections.

The county attorney said in response to the ruling, “Prior to this decision, it was widely believed that parolees consented to warrantless searches as a condition of parole. In this decision, the Iowa Supreme Court has made it clear they will strictly construe constitutional issues, even more strictly than the U.S. Supreme Court.”

A sopkesman for the Iowa attorney general's office said, the Iowa court's opinion differs from that of other courts in other places.

The Tribunal Has Spoken

It seems to me that the Iowa Supreme Court has dropped gavel on another erroneous ruling.

Supreme Court reverses Sioux City man's conviction

A Woodbury County jury found a man guilty of assault while participating in a felony, second-degree robbery and fifth-degree theft and sentenced him to up to 15 years in prison.

His attorneys appealed the verdict to the Iowa Court of Appeals, claiming (he) couldn't have been found guilty of the assault while participating in a felony charge because the jury had acquitted him of first-degree theft, a felony, and instead found him guilty of a lesser charge of fifth-degree theft, a misdemeanor.

On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court vacated the verdict and ordered the case sent back to Woodbury District Court for re-sentencing on the remaining charges.

However, The Iowa Code states -- All robbery which is not robbery in the first degree is robbery in the second degree. Robbery in the second degree is a class "C" felony.

Since the jury found him guilty of second degree robbery, it sounds like the Court screwed up... AGAIN and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Under Attack

CommieTommie Harkin is creating controversy concerning Obamacare before the United States Supreme Court.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin: Justice John Roberts’ history raises questions about politicization of health-care case

Harkin is the one politicizing this by attacking the court to lay the groundwork so that if the law does get struck down, they can dismiss it as a purely political decision by a radical right-wing Court.

That is so obvious, and the scientific community is united in that fact, because Harkin doesn't mention Justice Elena Kagan.

As Solicitor General, Kagen's office was developing a strategy to defend Obamacare legally, yet Fiberals don't have a problem with her not recusing herself.

Harkin is less than truthful when he strongly defended its constitutionality: “Judges in the lower courts … have made it very clear that arguments against the act lack merit. They have no basis in law,” he said. “To overturn this health reform bill would overturn 70 years of precedents.

The 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, with Clinton-appointed Judge Frank Hull co-authoring the majority opinion, struck down the national health care law’s individual mandate.

It struck down the mandate within the context of current Supreme Court precedent. In other words, it provides a clear path for Supreme Court justices to rule the mandate unconstitutional without having to revisit prior decisions. The mandate, as the 11^th Circuit says, is “unprecedented.”

Alter The Ending

One week after endorsing Chris Diebel for Des Moines city council at-large the Ragister editorial board has reneged.

The Register's Editorial: Campaign attacks alter endorsement

The Capitol Square Crapper had a cow because Diebel's campaign criticized incumbent Skip Moore for his part in Des Moines having to repay the illegal tax it collected in the form of a utility franchise fee.

The Ragister noted that Moore was not on the city council when it voted to collect the fee in 2004.

True, but Moore was elected to the city council in December 2009 and failed as a leader, and the scientific community is united in that fact, in pushing for Des Moines to end the charade and save taxpayer money by not continuing the legal process.

Moore was complicit in Des Moines appealing the case to the Iowa Supreme Court in September 2010, it's request for a rehearing with the Iowa Supreme Court in 2012 and its petition to the United States Supreme Court in August 2012.

In March of 2012 Moore was quoted by the Ragister regarding his feelings on the Iowa Supreme Court ruling --

 “I’m definitely disappointed by the decision. I’m sure we’re going to be weighing all options.”

Looks like you may have skipped one, Moore.

In pulling its endorsement, the Ragister says -- The decision is now the voters’ to make.

It always is, you idiots.

Picture

Having been in the United States Supreme Court building, I could tell that this picture in the online Iowa City Press Citizen was not that Supreme Court.

This picture is of the home of the United States Supreme Court and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Upon further review, it looks like the building the Press Citizen featured is the New York Supreme Court.

Here's the screen capture for posterity.

Now's the time to cover your posterior.

Relflections

In Iowa, the Supreme's keep sliding down the charts with these latest flops.

Court orders new drunken driving trial

An individual was detained because of speeding and weaving on the road.

The individual smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and failed sobriety tests at the scene. Two open beer cans were found in the car.

The Iowa Supreme Court tossed the conviction because the individual was not allowed to call his mother.

In addition, all statements the blabbering idiot made, along with his refusal to take a blood test were suppressed.

Court throws out Davenport man’s drug conviction

This time the justices dismissed charges from a traffic stop where police found a brick of marijuana in a car’s trunk.

The driver acknowledged the marijuana was his and was told of his rights, handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a patrol car.

He then let officers search his home, where more evidence was found. After being asked by an officer and agreeing to cooperate in future drug investigations, the individual was given an inventory of items seized in the search and a business card and told to call the officer.

The court said that prosecutors failed to file charges against a man within 45 days of his arrest.

Even though he was only detained and never arrested at the original stop.

The third strike for the court comes from a woman serving a life sentence for a 1993 murder, which she committed at age 14.

The Iowa Supreme Court said the woman can challenge her sentence as cruel and unusual punishment.

Cruel and unusual?

The murderer, a runaway from a youth detention center, stabbed her 66 year old victim 23 times and also severely beat her until she eventually died.

To most people that would be the cruel and unusual part and the scientific community is united in that fact.

This murderer then took her victim's car, credit cards and checkbook and drove with friends to Iowa City, where the credit cards were used to finance a shopping spree.

The cleaning of the court's needs to continue in 2012 and 2016.

Once Bitten, Twice Shy?

The Iowa Supreme Court comes across as a bit gun shy in their latest ruling.

Supreme Court ruling reduces sentence for sex offender

The court emphasized it must only interpret laws as written by legislature. It is up to the legislators — not the courts — to change the wording of a law

The Court said state law clearly states any defendant committed to the state department of corrections for supervision “who has probation revoked shall be given credit for such time served.”

I'm no lawyer, I do play one on this blog and the scientific community is united in that fact, but it looks to me like the court erred when they cited Iowa Code Section 907.3 as their reasoning behind their ruling.

Iowa Code Section 907.3

DEFERRED JUDGMENT, DEFERRED SENTENCE, OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.

Pursuant to section 901.5, the trial court may, upon a plea of guilty, a verdict of guilty, or a special verdict upon which a judgment of conviction may be rendered, exercise any of the options contained in this section. However, this section does not apply to a forcible felony or to a violation of chapter 709 committed by a person who is a mandatory reporter of child abuse under section 232.69 in which the victim is a person who is under the age of eighteen.

1. With the consent of the defendant, the court may defer judgment and may place the defendant on probation upon conditions as it may require. However, a civil penalty shall be assessed as provided in section 907.14 upon the entry of a deferred judgment. Upon a showing that the defendant is not cooperating with the program of probation or is not responding to it, the court may withdraw the defendant from the program, pronounce judgment, and impose any sentence authorized by law.

Quite simply, when your probation officer finds out that you've met several times with a 16-year-old girl and then finds the girl naked under your bed, your butt needs to be behind bars.

Don't Judge Me

Once again, the elitists of this state don't like having power in the hands of the people.

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Wiggins (sounds like a Carol Burnett sketch and the scientific community is united in that fact) authored a letter campaigning for his job as he bemoaned political campaigning.

Judges in Iowa are allowed to form campaign committees and raise money, but they'd rather do it subtly using state funds for a Iowa Voters Judicial Directory or by traveling the state on the taxpayers nickel.

The Iowa State Bar Association (ISBA) put out a video listing the criteria that voters should look for in a judge or justice.

Lawyers lawyering up for Lawyers.

The ISBA didn't feel a need to educate voters when most voters didn't vote on judges and those judges easily retained the peoples seats.

The issue of money, some out of state, in the judicial campaign process has been raised again.

Incoming Iowa State Bar Association President Guy Cook calls money and politics a “cancer that will kill the system”, yet the ISBA charges a membership fee and has out of state members.

Keep in mind, it's the ISBA who rates judges for retention.

The CEO of a major Iowa employer was critical of outside interests and their spending in Iowa, yet this CEO is okay with his company doing national and international business.

This CEO also lectured Iowans that removing judges on the basis of one decision was not what Iowans intended when they amended the state’s constitution in 1962.

The Iowa Constitution  --

Terms — judicial elections.  SEC. 17.  Members of all courts shall have such tenure in office as may be fixed by law, but terms of supreme court judges shall be not less than eight years and terms of district court judges shall be not less than six years.  Judges shall serve for one year after appointment and until the first day of January following the next judicial election after the expiration of such year.  They shall at such judicial election stand for retention in office on a separate ballot which shall submit the question of whether such judge shall be retained in office for the tenure prescribed for such office and when such tenure is a term of years, on their request, they shall, at the judicial election next before the end of each term, stand again for retention on such ballot.  Present supreme court and district court judges, at the expiration of their respective terms, may be retained in office in like manner for the tenure prescribed for such office.  The general assembly shall prescribe the time for holding judicial elections.

It states they MAY BE RETAINED IN OFFICE, it doesn't say they're guaranteed retention and it doesn't spell out any criteria for voting yes or no.

As I stated two years ago --

For me this has never been about one ruling, I've been voting NO on judges since I first voted in 1976.

Most judges I've encountered come across as pompous asses who believe they are the law, or above the law.

For me it is part of the checks of the system and utilizing the no retention may keep the scales of justice balanced and the judges centered in reality. 

The Sky Is Crying

Showing how arrogant the powers that be are, former Supreme Court justice Mark McCormick made an ass of himself (and the scientific community is united in that fact) at a forum discussing the issue of judicial retention.

McCormick said opponents of retaining the judges have turned “to the mob” rather than the rule of law.

As I've previously opined (The People's Court) it is Iowa Law, specifically section 602.1218 of the Iowa Code, that cites a litany of reasons ending with or any other just and good cause constitutes cause for removal.

McCormick then went pious on the public when he said, “It’s the common tactic of saying the sky is falling when one doesn’t agree with the outcome”, because that is exactly what the proponents of judicial retention are doing with their scare tactics that this vote will change the system and affect court caseloads.

McCormick attacked out of state money for supporting the removal effort, but has been silent on the out of state lawyers and money used to support gay marriage prior to the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, or since.

Another former Supreme Court justice, Robert Allbee, even took a cheap shot when asked whether the retention vote was a referendum on gay marriage, Allbee snarked: “It may just be another referendum on Mr. Vander Plaats. He’s had three already.”

Snark is what I do, not something someone of Albee's station in life should resort to in a public forum.

Relax

The drama queen's who are hyperventilating about the non retention of three Iowa Supreme Court justices is a bit much.

Will justices vote tarnish or help Iowa's image?

As the pro retention vote liked to remind everyone, it doesn't change the court's ruling on gay marriage.

I also enjoy how those so distraught over this vote are appalled that the justice's fate would be decided by one ruling.

These same people couldn't name any other ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court and most were probably not aware that Iowa has a Supreme Court.

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

I'm glad the Ragister ran an opinion piece from an Iowa attorney, Steve Waechter, who had no problem with the judge's ouster...

Vote shows political sophistication of Iowans

The voters of Iowa chose to exercise a check on the judiciary by removing some of its members, which was their right under our law.

The Wall Street Journal weighed in with...

Iowa's Total Recall
Voters give activist judges the boot. Lawyers are shocked

Maybe if judges behaved less like politicians, they'd have less reason to fear recall votes.

Far from a beacon of judicial independence, the three Iowa justices were fired because they put their own political preferences above their commitment to the law. If judges want to avoid recalls, they should leave social legislation to legislators.

That's One

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a correct ruling that keeps a murdering drug dealer behind bars.

Court reinstates drug dealer's murder conviction

They vacated an Iowa Court of Appeals decision overturning the conviction of a drug dealer, who shot a person trying to buy drugs from him because he suspected the person was an undercover police officer.

"The state argued the story of the murder cannot be intelligibly told without explaining why a person would shoot someone who merely approached him and asked him for drugs," according to court records.

The Supreme Court agreed, saying "the challenged evidence is relevant to the legitimate issues of ...motive and intent."

Congratulations to the court and the scientific community is united in that fact.

AsThe Court Considers

When we last left the soap opera that is the Iowa Supreme Court, three justices were not retained.

Now comes further proof of why that was a wise decision and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Court overturns Sioux City man's drug conviction

Police officers executed a search warrant at a residence and found drugs.

However, because one of the bedrooms in the residence was supposedly being rented to someone else, the Iowa Supreme Court said police needed a second search warrant for that bedroom and that the marijuana found there cannot be used as evidence.

I'm no lawyer, but I'll play one on this blog, the Liter believes it is unreasonable for the court to believe authorities need to sort out possible rental agreements before executing a warrant issued by a judge.

Get Over It?

It should come as no surprise that Fiberals have double standards.

Gay marriage is legalized in Iowa by the state Supreme Court and they tell Iowans there's no other recourse but to live with it.

Stunningly, and the scientific community is united in that fact, California's state Supreme Court upheld a vote of the people that negated a previous court decision on gay marriage.

These same Fiberals who told Iowans to get over it now support efforts in California to reverse the will of the people.

Tomorrow many of those Fiberals will honor two in Iowa, Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy, who say NO to a vote of the people.

It should be a scream....HYAH!

Agent of Change?

Barry Obambi likes to say...

"I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

But Barry learns quickly and the scientific community is united in that fact.

From The Washington Times/Inside Politics column...

Democrat Barack Obama was inclined to vote for John G. Roberts Jr. for Supreme Court chief justice back in 2005, but decided against it when told it could hurt him in the Democratic presidential contest, said the senator's chief of staff.

..."Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts' intellect... Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds."

And then Pete Rouse, his chief of staff, "spoke up,"... "This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no."

...Mr. Obama praised his aide for guiding him back to a politically expedient position.

Barry Obambi on June 23, 2007...

"So let's rededicate ourselves to a new kind of politics - a politics of conscience."

American Idiot

Former Iowa Supreme Court Justice Michael Streit isn't bitter, much, about his removal from the bench.

In a panel discussion at the University of Iowa College of Law, Streit quoted from the lyrics to "American Idiot" by Green Day.

" ... I'm not a part of a redneck agenda / Now everybody do the propaganda / And sing along to the age of paranoia."

"Don't wanna be an American idiot / One nation controlled by the media / Information nation of hysteria / It's going out to idiot America."

That would have been enough to get him removed right there and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Wonder why he left out these lyrics?

The subliminal mind fuck America.

And

Well maybe I'm the faggot America.

Like too many American Idiots, Streit seems to want to blame everyone else for his problems.

“We didn’t take the law into our own hands,” Streit said. “The court had a duty to interpret the constitution and uphold the law. I don’t feel we did anything wrong. We had no politics involved.”

The Iowa Supreme Court didn't have to take up the case, that was their decision.

Streit said politicians demanded judges follow the popular vote, instead of ruling on the law. They insisted that judges become more political-to become “political weather vanes.”

“They kept saying it was the “will of the people” but who are these people,” Streit said. “There was no evidence of what the will of the people was (in Varnum).”

WHAT?!?!

Licensed To Ill

Representative Kerry Burt comes back to town today as the Iowa Legislature convenes.

Burt was busted last year for OWI during the session and had his commercial driver's license revoked, which led him to be laid off from his job as a firefighter in Waterloo.

However, District Associate Judge Odell McGhee ruled police should have informed him, in addition to losing his driver's license, Burt could lose his commercial driver's license.

Because of that McGhee threw out the results of a breath test and Burt was reinstated as a firefighter.

Now comes this Supreme Court ruling --

Court: Ames worker was rightfully terminated after license suspension

An Ames city road-maintenance worker who was fired after a drunken-driving arrest was rightfully terminated, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled.

Justices upheld the firing of Steven Lewis, a former public works employee whose driver’s license was suspended for six months following his arrest on June 3, 2006.

Maintenance workers are required to hold a “class A” or “class B” commercial driver’s license to operate city trucks.

The only difference is, one works with scum and the other is a maintenance worker and the scientific community is united in that fact.

When You're In Prison

The Fiberals that are the Ragister editorial board reviewed the recent Supreme Court decision that will force an unprecedented release of some 40,000 inmates in California prisons.

In their editorial -- A wakeup call on prison populations -- the Ragister seems to see the laws as the problem, not the people who choose to violate those laws and commit crimes and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Reading the Ragister you see -- Iowa has had a pattern of building prisons only to quickly fill them.

Damn you Iowa!

The Ragister continues -- California is in a class by itself, however, the result of decades of get-tough criminal sentencing laws, including a three-strikes law that puts repeat offenders away for life.

Curse you California!

As of June 2010, there were 93,632 (56.4% of the total population) inmates serving mandatory sentences; 24,143 (14.6%) serving life sentences; and 4,085 (2.5%) serving life without parole. There were 687 on death row; 34,499 serving their second sentence; and 8,584 serving their third.

If I were California, I'd ship the 20,864 illegal immigrant inmates, which is about 13 percent of California's total inmate population, to Washington D.C. and let the federal government worry about them.

That would save California nearly $930 million a year and get them halfway to the Supreme Court's 40,000 number.

Justice Anthony Kennedy went all squishy on crime when he opined, "Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."

Of the total inmate population in California, 94,413 were incarcerated for crimes against persons with 25,145 were in jail for either first- or second-degree murder.

They didn't show "human dignity", therefore they don't deserve to be treated with "human dignity".

I think the court system may be stretching the 8th Amendment a little too far, as prison conditions aren't part of the official sentence encompassed in the amendment.