Legal Reality Newsletter 27 November A. D. 2011Posted: November 27, 2011 | |
27 November A.D. 2011
The greatest number are so quick to criticize.
This follows, apparently, from the presumption of “knowing the law.”
If they “knew the law,” there wouldn’t be “any” discussion about the “constitution,” at all, save that which intends to show why there’s no value in discussing the “constitution” for any other reason.
But, let’s go with this one a little bit farther down the road.
It’s quite correct that there is no “Art. 28,” thus, no Art. 28, section 144, in the document that most people consider to be “the” “constitution.”
However, there IS a Title 28, and a Section 144 in Title 28, that addresses bias of judges.
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.
Clearly, this deals with trial courts, not the Supreme Court. So, it’ll be a leap to get this applicable to the issues with Justice Kagan.
But, to stop there is to miss the point.
There are a few of us who see that Titles 1 – 5 and Title 28 are treated as the “constitution” for that system that is known today as “United States of America.”
This one isn’t read by this author as an “error” of galactic proportion. It’s more like a “clue” to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Those fixated on “constitution” and 1776, and 1789, and Bill of Rights, and all that, are very like to dismiss this as “error” of galactic proportion and never thing against about it.
This author encourages those so inclined to think, again, about this one. The “FOX” people are actually right on top of this one, although it is coming in from the outfield. Those seeing a “myth” are those who “see” the “constitution.”
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : firstname.lastname@example.org