American Conservative Union Reacts To Supreme Court Activity

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26, 2015

ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp on today’s Supreme
Court decision in “Obergefell v. Hodges”:

“The Supreme Court has become unhinged from its purpose…
resolving questions through judicial fiat,” says Schlapp

WASHINGTON DC – “The American people have received two devastating rulings from a Supreme Court that has become unhinged from its purpose. As with other catastrophic decisions, this Court is attempting to resolve through judicial fiat questions appropriately belonging in the hands of the American people. That is the opposite of what our Founders envisioned.

“The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has dramatically re-imagined the role of our Judiciary and has empowered the Court to behave as unelected legislators without term limits.

“It should come as no surprise given yesterday’s tragic dismantling of a government of, for, and by the People, that the Roberts Court has moved us farther in the direction of using the Judiciary to serve political ends by disregarding the notion of constitutionality in today’s decision. Sadly, one consequence of this overreach will undoubtedly be growing resentment and rancor around these issues. As in the Roe vs. Wade decision concerning abortion, usurping the will of the people does not resolve conflict, it only extends it.

“The 1st Amendment clearly states that Religious Liberties are protected. However, President Obama and the liberals ignore this protection and seek to dictate what are ‘appropriate’ tenets of faith. Today’s opinion creates the Church of the Supreme Court, with President Obama serving as its High Priest.

“If America is strong enough to live under this decision, then it should be strong enough to protect the rights of sincere and decent people of faith, whose rights are sadly forgotten.”

For more information or to schedule an interview or additional comment from ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp contact Ian Walters or Ross Hemminger at (202) 347-9388 or by email at
iwalters (at) conservative.org
and ross (at) conservative.org

White House Creates Unlawful Immigration Policies, Usurps Congressional Power

[From article]
The Obama administration has created a new immigration path to the U.S. without Congressional approval, Sen. Jeff Sessions says. The Alabama Republican chaired a hearing looking into the Obama administration’s new program to fly Central Americans as refugees and asylees to the U.S.
USCIS Associate Director For Refugee, Asylum And International Operations Joseph Langlois confirmed that illegal immigrants granted executive amnesty would be eligible to apply to have their relatives flown to the U.S. from El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala under the administration’s Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program.
“They would qualify to apply for their child and spouse. However the child and spouse would still need to meet the eligibility criteria for refugees,” Langlois testified before the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.
Sessions, the subcommittee’s chairman, pointed out that the Obama administration is moving forward with the program without Congresses approval.
“I just want to say, Congress rejected this. So the President is executing it on his own,” Sessions said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/23/sen-jeff-sessions-obama-program-establishes-a-new-system-of-immigration/

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: OBAMA PROGRAM ‘ESTABLISHES A NEW SYSTEM OF IMMIGRATION’
by CAROLINE MAY

23 Apr 2015

One Man's Transformation of A Nation

Courts Rebuke White House Abuses of Power

[From article]
There are much bigger issues here than the one upon which King and the other two cases that have received judgments were fought. One of these other issues is the growing lawlessness of the executive branch -- the president seems to think he’s a law unto himself. On July 7, Red State reported that the Court had delivered twenty unanimous rebukes against the Obama administration for actions smacking of rank overreach. The IRS regulation in question is another case of an imperial president ignoring duly enacted laws and inventing his own out of whole cloth. And now the president threatens to continue down this road with an executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens.
[. . .]
Another issue that may sound a bit precious to those who aren’t offended by an imperial presidency is the integrity of The Law. Not only is ObamaCare bad policy and bad economics and bad for our health, it is bad law. The government’s lawyers are even reduced to defending ObamaCare by citing its ambiguity. If our laws are unclear on central points, like financing, then Congress should clarify them, not the Court, and certainly not the executive.
The incoherence of ObamaCare was made worse by the Court itself when it allowed the law to stand in NFIB v. Sebelius. It was a fine victory for fans of limited government when the Court ruled that Congress could not command individuals to purchase health insurance. But what we’re left with is a Congress that can tax us for not doing what it has no power to command us to do.
[. . .]
The text of ObamaCare shows 91 instances of “State shall,” and 24 additional instances if pluralized. One wonders what the crafters of the bill were thinking when they included that language: Congress cannot make demands of the States to effectuate a federal program. So, all those instances of “State shall” are dead code. If the feds tried to bring the States to heel by suing them for not complying with “State shall,” it would be a fool’s errand. “Dual sovereignty,” both federal and state, still applies in America.
[. . .]
Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon applauded the Court and then wrote:
Since January, the Obama administration has been spending billions of unauthorized federal dollars, and subjecting nearly 60 million Americans to unauthorized taxes, all to hide the full cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. The administration’s actions have not only violated the law and caused massive economic disruption, they have also subverted the democratic process.
[. . .]
The Court rightly found that Congress has no authority under the Commerce Clause to command individuals to engage in commerce by forcing them to buy health insurance. Consequently, all those references in ObamaCare to “interstate commerce,” the original justification for the mandate, are dead code.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/obamacare_if_the_wine_is_sour_throw_it_out.html

November 17, 2014
ObamaCare: 'If the Wine Is Sour, Throw It Out'
By Jon N. Hall

US Judge Who Declared White House Immigration Memo Unconstitutional, Was Acting Without Jurisdiction

McCarthy's analysis is that the judge who "decided" that Obama's memorandum to change immigration law is unconstitutional, was himself acting outside of the constitution. The underlying cause of action, of the case before this judge was a criminal matter. Deportation is a civil matter. The judge did not have jurisdiction. But in these days of widespread adoption of the Obama-Holder doctrine, inconvenient laws may be ignored by selected persons, what does jurisdiction matter? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which legalized same sex marriage did not have jurisdiction over marriage. The state constitution states that matters regarding marriage are to be left to the Governor and the legislature. That did not stop the MA Judiciary, led at the time by Margaret Marshal, the former General Counsel of Harvard University. Perhaps the gentleman from Baltimore and Georgia who shot dead two NYPD officers while they were sitting in their patrol car was inspired by the same lawlessness in Washington DC and Boston. What does equal protection of the laws mean? If politicians can pick and choose which laws to obey, why not the rest of us? Laws are just for the little people. I do not think that shooter thought of himself as a little person.

[From article]
Judge Schwab, analogously, has run roughshod over constitutional boundaries that limit the exercise of judicial authority. The Constitution empowers judges to resolve only cases and controversies that are actually before the court. In this case, President Obama’s decree was not before Judge Schwab — at least until he gratuitously directed the parties, who had not raised it, to address it.
CONSTITUTIONAL OVERREACH . . . BY THE JUDGE
As is typical with judicial activism, Schwab not only ignores the law in order to reach a matter he has no business addressing; he then mangles the law in addressing it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394939/lawless-judge-lawless-president-andrew-c-mccarthy

DECEMBER 18, 2014 4:00 AM

Lawless Judge, Lawless President
He rules against Obama, but he too is flouting the Constitution.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

Court Decides White House Actions Unconstitutional

Posted December 16, 2014 9:34 PM ET; Last updated December 19, 2014 4:00 PM ET




Should it matter who appointed the judges? If they are sworn to uphold the laws, why does it matter? Are judges imposing their personal and political opinions on others in courts?

[From article]
Schwab is the first judge to rule on the legality of the plan Obama announced on Nov. 20. The executive action by the Democratic president is opposed by Republicans and has already been legally challenged by two dozen U.S. states.
'President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,' Judge Schwab wrote.
[. . .]
'I obviously agree with the idea that the action he took was an unlawful and unconstitutional action,' South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune told MailOnline, noting that he had not yet read the ruling.
'I wish the president was a little bit more – I wish he had accepted the results of the election and decided that it was time, maybe, to go in a different direction,' Thune said. 'I don't know that he got the message.'
'Coming out right away with the immigration decision' after the Democrats' disastrous midterm shellacking 'wasn't helpful,' he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876698/Federal-judge-says-Obama-executive-action-immigration-unconstitutional-Democratic-senators-snipe-s-wrong.html

Federal judge says Obama executive action on immigration is unconstitutional while Democratic senators snipe that he's 'wrong'
Bush-appointed jurist rules the White House 'amnesty' plan is an example of legislation – something only Congress can do
Democratic U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal sniped to MailOnline that Schwab is 'wrong' and made 'an incorrect decision'
Judge dismissed administration's claim that it is using 'prosecutorial discretion' to decide which illegal immigrants it will stop deporting
'President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the U.S. Constitution,' judge Arthur Schwab ruled
GOP Senator John Thune said Obama hadn't yet 'got the message' about his party's stinging November election defeat
By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 17:38 EST, 16 December 2014 | UPDATED: 17:42 EST, 16 December 2014

* * *

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/federal-judge-obama-immigration-actions-unconstitutional/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29

Federal judge: Obama immigration actions 'unconstitutional'
Published December 16, 2014

FoxNews.com
* * *
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/judge-finds-obama-amnesty-unconstitutional/
Federal judge rules Obama amnesty order unconstitutional power grab
Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times Tuesday, December 16, 2014


* * *

[From article]
“It’s the Constitution itself that is under assault by the president of the United States by this executive order,” Mr. Abbott told NBC’s “Meet the Press” this weekend. “This lawsuit is not about immigration. The issue in this lawsuit is abuse of executive power.”
Analysts on both sides of the issue said Mr. Obama’s opponents were fortunate to draw Judge Hanen, who has already shown a deep distrust of Homeland Security officials, questioning both their policies and their legal arguments.
In a 10-page order last December, just as the surge of illegal immigrant children was beginning, he blasted the Obama administration for refusing to get tough on enforcement and instead shipping children caught at the border to live with their illegal immigrant parents here in the U.S. — and refusing to even try to deport those parents.
[. . .]
“The DHS should cease telling the citizens of the United States that it is enforcing our border security laws because it is clearly not,” Judge Hanen wrote. “Even worse, it is helping those who violate these laws.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/7/obama-amnesty-in-jeopardy-with-bush-judicial-appoi/

Obama amnesty in jeopardy with Bush judicial
appointee hearing states’ challenge
Judge Andrew Hanen rebuked Homeland Security last year for refusing to follow border security laws
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Updated: 9:38 p.m. on Sunday, December 7, 2014

Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe Declares EPA Rules Unconstitutional

[From article]
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is unconstitutional because it violates the Tenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, according to a noted liberal Harvard law professor.
“In short, coal has been a bedrock component of our economy and energy policy for decades,” writes constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. “The [EPA's rule] demonstrates the risk of allowing an unaccountable administrative agency to ‘make’ law and attempt to impose the burden of global climate change on an unlucky and unfortunate few.”



http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/05/harvard-law-professor-epa-climate-rule-is-unconstitutional/

Harvard Law Professor: EPA Climate Rule Is Unconstitutional
12:57 PM 12/05/2014
MICHAEL BASTASCH

White House Shows Extreme Contempt For Rule Of Law

Obama favors the rule of lawyers over the rule of law.

[From article]
Learning to run around American law was his main purpose in attending Harvard Law School, where he quickly sidled up to Professor Derrick Bell, who bashed the Constitution as a form of “original sin.”
There was no reverence in studying the founding documents and the system they created, no desire to work within America’s legal framework and enforce existing law.
No, Obama didn’t study federal statutes to defend them. He studied them to game them, sabotage them. To abdicate them.
[. . .]
According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, the Hill’s nonpartisan think tank, the president’s authority to grant amnesty is limited to illegal aliens facing emergency situations — such as wars or earthquakes, floods and droughts — that prevent their safe deportation.
The almost 5 million illegals getting a pass from Obama face no such hazards.
By giving them work permits, Obama’s also violating the Immigration and Nationality Act’s intent of protecting domestic labor.
[. . .]
But Obama’s not just flouting immigration statutes. He’s also reinterpreting the nation’s civil-rights laws.
[. . .]
By referring lower and lower shares of black kids for discipline until they equal white levels, MPS is favoring one race over another in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
[. . .]
Also, Obama is illegally rewriting both the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act in order to pressure lenders and insurers into setting quotas for minority homebuyers.
[. . .]
“This is yet another example of an administrative agency trying desperately to write into law that which Congress never intended to sanction,” he wrote in his opinion.
[. . .]
For the administration to claim otherwise is “wishful thinking on steroids,” the judge scolded.
[. . .]
Meanwhile, EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, a former NAACP activist, is unlawfully expanding enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to pressure employers to hire minorities with criminal records.
[. .  .]
Both cases charged employers were racist simply for conducting criminal background checks and credit checks for all their job applicants, whites and blacks equally.
[. . .]
Over and over, this administration has run roughshod over the stated will of legislators, even rewriting statutes to suit its radical agenda.
When Obama swore to faithfully execute the nation’s laws, he clearly intended to do no such thing.

http://nypost.com/2014/11/30/how-obama-blatantly-disregards-the-law/

How Obama blatantly disregards the law
By Paul Sperry
New York Post
November 30, 2014 | 1:00am

Obama Shows No Shame For His Lawlessness

[From article]
Obama has now ushered in the Age of the Dictator for America.  This man is, in essence, acting as emperor of this country.  Despite the will of the American people, despite the outright illegal usurpation of rights that the president of the United States does not possess, Obama has changed the landscape of this country forever.
[. . .]
this bullying and total disregard for the law mirrors what Obama is doing concerning discipline in the schools.  Society is now expected to accept out-of-control behavior by black students and simply do nothing about it.
[. . .]
This is the double standard that Obama is so fond of.  He does not have to abide by Obamacare; he does not have to abide by the Constitution; he is above the law simply because of his race.  His lies are accepted because to make him accountable is to be racist.  Whether it is a 15-year-old student wreaking havoc in a classroom or a 53-year-old president trashing the Constitution, race trumps rules.
[. . .]
Conservative groups continue to be singled out by the IRS, and no one is punished by this administration.  And, of course, everything is done in secrecy, because that is how corrupt government breeds and metastasizes.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/no_shame_for_obama_.html

November 24, 2014
No Shame for Obama
By Eileen F. Toplansky

How Does White House Grant Amnesty If There Was No Wrongdoing?

[From article]
Listening to members of the Obama administration trying to explain President Obama’s plan for amnesty for illegal aliens offers evidence that they still think like very young children, particularly when they are trying to avoid being blamed for anything that happens.
[. . .]
So it appears that good ol’ Barry is going to provide amnesty to millions of people who want to live in the United States but really think it’s inconvenient to have to ask the government to grant them a legal authorization to live and work (and might actually be expected to pay state and federal taxes and support themselves and their families) in our country.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/just_why_are_illegal_aliens_not_criminal.html

November 21, 2014
Just Why are Illegal Aliens not Criminal?
By Jim Yardley

White House Acts Like Dictatorship

[From article]
When a tyrant asserts the right to rule by decree in a state that has formerly been subject to the rule of law, he is commonly described as carrying out a coup d’etat.

That is just what the Obama administration has done, and reportedly will continue to do. When Obama changed the Affordable Care Act by decree–to name just one example, substituting “2014″ for “2013″ in a critical provision of the statute–he acted as a tyrant. In his refusal to enforce the immigration laws, contrary to the Constitution which requires him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” he has acted like a tinpot dictator, asserting the right to change or ignore the law by fiat. If he now directly nullifies Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act by legalizing, and issuing work permits to, five or six million illegal immigrants, thereby repealing federal law by decree, how else can we describe his action but as a coup?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/is-barack-obama-plotting-a-coup.php

POSTED ON AUGUST 3, 2014

BY JOHN HINDERAKER
IS BARACK OBAMA PLOTTING A COUP?

Health Care Act Exposed as Misguided, Unlawful Changes By Obama

[From article]
Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act forces taxpayers to make insurers whole for most of the losses incurred selling ObamaCare exchange plans through 2016. The bailout is designed to conceal the failure of the president's signature health law until he is out of office.
No one in the Obama administration talked up the advantages of bailing out insurers. It was kept under wraps until the fall of 2013. That's when 5 million to 6 million health plans were canceled because they didn't comply with ObamaCare's one-size-fits-all coverage requirements effective Jan. 1.
Insurers developed new plans, as the health law required, set premiums (generally higher) and sent out notices canceling the old plans.
That caused public outrage. Trying to quell it, the president ignored his own law and told insurance companies on Nov. 14 they could keep selling the old plans. Insurers were caught off guard. They predicted there would be less demand for their new plans and that they'd lose money.
Here's where the plot thickens. On the same day, an Obama administration health official, Gary Cohen, announced that the federal government (taxpayers) will offset most losses, citing Section 1342.
Sweetening what the law already guarantees, he pledged to "modify" the bailout's "final rules to provide additional assistance." That's when Congress finally did its job and read Section 1342.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/013114-688457-obamacare-has-a-dirty-little-secret.htm?p=full

A Few More Reasons To Repeal ObamaCare
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
 Posted 01/31/2014 05:32 PM ET

Obama Continues Criminal Abuses of Power

[From article]
There is a dangerous arrogance of power among the President and senior-level Democrats that should concern every American.
Last week a senior United States Senator gave a speech stating that the IRS should be used to target and punish groups that disagree with the Democratic Party’s political agenda.  Sen. Chuck Schumer stated, “…there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies — we must redouble those efforts immediately.”  Schumer was also one of a number of Democrat Senators who signed a 2012 letter to the IRS demanding they be more aggressive against conservative organizations.
[. . .]
Documents inadvertently leaked by the Department of the Treasury from a briefing on Operation Choke Point clearly show that the Administration is looking to significantly impact legal businesses because it believes the public needs to be protected from industries and customers deemed more likely to engage in criminal activity.
[. . .]
The Administration is refusing to answer any Congressional inquiries about Operation Choke Point.
[. . .]
When Obama wanted to go around federal immigration law, he instructed the Justice Department to ignore the portions of the law he didn’t like.  The same was done with welfare laws and drug laws.  Now he’s looking to unilaterally raise the minimum wage for federal workers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2014/01/31/obamas-weaponization-of-government/

1/31/2014 @ 10:21AM
Obama's Weaponization of Government
Thomas J. Basile, Contributor

Obama Continues to Demonstrate Contempt For The Constitution

[From article]
Very soon after first taking office, as I've reported previously, President Obama actually prevented trials from being held accusing him of unilaterally using "renditions" -- kidnapping alleged terrorists from the streets of their countries to be taken to nations known for torturing suspects. He used the state secrets privilege to close off our system of justice more often than Bush ever did. Since then, Obama has not forbade renditions. And because renditions are classified, we don't know who has been taken where.
And as I often remind you, because most of the media has gone to sleep on this, in 2011, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which, for the first time in our history, permitted the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens indefinitely -- including in this country -- for allegedly being "associated" with terrorists, without evidence presented before an American court.
[. . .]
in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction."
All of this could come under the control of President Obama -- or whoever is holding the office.
"The order empowers the president to dispense these vast resources as he sees fit during a national crisis [. . .]
"The executive branch is arrogating responsibilities precluded by the Constitution without even asking the permission of Congress. The order gives Mr. Obama a blank check to erect a centralized authoritarian state ..."
[. . .]
How many kids in school now (and those to come) have any debatable idea of what's going on with our Constitution? Do they understand how Obama's uses of executive power have changed what used to be America's rule of law and our globally distinctive values?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff012914.php3#.UvC8Vt00i6Y

Jewish World Review

Jan. 29, 2014/ 28 Shevat, 5774
Obama keeps showing why he's impeachable
By Nat Hentoff

Judge Halts FBI Abuses (Which ones?)

http://www.france24.com/en/20130316-fbi-snooping-tactic-ruled-unconstitutional

16 MARCH 2013 - 03H00
FBI snooping tactic ruled unconstitutional
A US judge has ordered the FBI to stop its "pervasive" use of National Security letters to secretly snoop on phone and email records, ruling that the heavily used tactic was unconstitutional.
The Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation strong authority to order that people's telecom records be handed over, without such requests having to be disclosed.
AFP

Obamacare May Still Be Declared Unconstitutional

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2012/10/08/supreme_court_shocks_life_into_obamacare_challenge

Supreme Court Shocks Life into Obamacare Challenge
Matt Barber
TownHall.com
October 8, 2012

Obama Seeks To Deny Religious Freedom

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/columns/frank/article_cb8ce336-fa1e-11e1-81c2-001a4bcf887a.html

Religious freedom is fine as long as it stays in church
Posted: Saturday, September 8, 2012 7:36 pm
FRANK MIELE
Daily Inter Lake

Impeach Obama Because

http://townhall.com/columnists/tonykatz/2012/04/04/obama_is_making_the_case_for_his_own_impeachment

Obama Is Making the Case For His Own Impeachment
TownHall.com
Tony Katz
April 4, 2012

Can Courts Overturn Laws? Duh!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/high_court_crisis_BseKEywO2nFXL7LDJ10a7J

High court crisis?
Editorial
New York Post
Last Updated: 12:30 AM, April 4, 2012
Posted: April 04, 2012

Forced Drugging Is Illegal

[From article]
"In one of the Bill Bigley cases, I took the deposition (PDf pages 34-37) of the hospital psychiatrist about her use of “emergency” medication, which makes clear that (a) she didn’t know what the legal requirements were and (b) Mr. Bigley was being drugged for non-existent emergencies.

Psychiatrists seldom know the laws which allow them to take a person’s freedom or to force them to take drugs. The bigger issue is that police, judges, journalists and lawyers allow these abuses due to their own ignorance and biases. How often do lawyers who represent persons accused of mental illness challenge judges for their bias, or court rules or decisions for their violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and/or state discrimination laws? I’ve had hundreds of discussions with journalists, police, and prosecutors about this issue and they all show the same bias and ignorance.


The psychiatric industry was allowed to misuse its powers making mental illness into crime. Police, prosecutors, judges, journalists and lawyers allow this abuse of power contrary to law. Misguided priorities established by campaign contributions by drug companies and human services industry corporations encouraged politicians to write laws for profit not to protect the rights of individuals.

What other alleged illness is promoted by taxpayer funded state and US agencies? The 50 state Departments of Mental Health and the NIMH are no less than taxpayer funded PR firms for the drug industry. One more example of government working for the benefit of the drug industry, the human services industry and the psychiatric industry.

[From article]
"In other words, the New York high court held that an [outpatient commitment] order mandating a person take psychiatric drugs does not really compel the person to take psychiatric drugs. This is a classic example of a court decision being divorced from reality."


Psychiatry itself is divorced from reality. Only psychiatrists can see mental illness. There is no pathology. Mental illnesses are speech and behavior that psychiatrists do not like or do not understand. It is mostly protected speech and behavior which psychiatrists define as an illness. Experiencing emotions is also mental illness. Questioning authority enshrined in the Bill of Rights as The First Amendment is a mental disorder according to these control freaks. But for some misguided reason “the elected criminal class” (Noam Chomsky’s phrase) gave to charlatans the power and wisdom to define reality. Such court decisions (In Re. Kendra’s Law) are written according to the Humpty Dumpty Rule, “Words mean whatever I want them to mean.”

[From article]
"[from Kendra's New York Law decision] the patient has a history of lack of compliance with treatment that has either necessitated hospitalization or resulted in acts of serious violent behavior or threats of, or attempts at, serious physical harm;

Here the court makes the irrational conclusion that there is a causal connection between lack of treatment and violence. Linking crime and an accusation of mental illness allows for further eroding constitutional rights. More importantly it demonizes all persons so accused. Due process protections are omitted from laws regarding psychiatry. This is one element of the absurdity of judicial thinking on this matter. The woman Kendra Webdale’s death, (for whom the law is named) was used to emotionally sway the public and the legislature to write the law and to uphold it. The notorious NY AG, Elliot Spitzer, supported the law which was proposed by NAMI.

[From article]
"the lawyers assigned to represent people don’t do their job.
[. . .]
the reason why so many forced drugging orders are issued is because the lawyers assigned to represent people, don’t do so.
[. . .]
the lawyers appointed to represent people facing forced drugging rarely fulfill their obligation to assert the right to a less intrusive alternative.
[. . .]
In addition to the lawyers assigned to represent people not doing their job properly, one of the biggest obstacles is appellate judges, just like trial court judges, believe the common wisdom that the drugs are helpful and nothing else works."

Lawyer misconduct cannot be over emphasized. The bias of lawyers and their competence must be questioned and addressed. When a person accused of mental illness questions his lawyer, who does not protect his or her rights, the court, i.e., the judge, just makes that into being uncooperative, and a symptom of mental illness and incompetence. That is where judicial bias must be challenged too. But if the lawyer does not do his job due to bias, he is unlikely to challenge a judge’s unlawful bias.

[from article]
" As an aside, I am not in favor of people using mental illness as a way to avoid criminal responsibility for their actions."

New Hampshire legislature passed laws making mental illness a mitigating factor in criminal liability. I do not know how many states allow this. But it is an abomination and a corruption of the criminal justice system. It is no different than Flip Wilson’s character Geraldine saying “The devil made me do it.” when asked why he (she) purchased a dress.

No mention of why lawyers for persons accused of mental illness seldom use the discrimination laws. Court Rules and Rules of Evidence violate state and US discrimination laws and state and US Constitutions’ equal protection laws. Why do only women enjoy the right to say what happens to their bodies?

What is the best way to educate the public? Journalists join lawyers, judges, police and the psychiatric industry promoting the abuses you describe. Many journalists take psychiatric drugs and believe psychiatric fantasies. Why for example are there no programs on taxpayer funded PBS stations across the US to address these issues? PBS regularly broadcasts shows about bias against other groups. My efforts at the Boston PBS station led to me being shunned by journalists after I protested the fact that the stations discriminate based on disability. The Boston Globe excluded persons with disabilities from a special advertising section on diversity and vulnerable people. Why do Affirmative Action and diversity experts exclude persons accused of mental illness, when they advocate for multimillionaires who are members of the major three victim groups — Black persons, Women and Homosexuals? Is it the same in every major media market? What will it take to have these issues discussed regularly on the air and in print? What organization that alleges they protect persons with disabilities uses a PR firm as the government and corporations, especially the drug industry, use? NAMI is where most journalists go for information on these issues. NAMI promotes drug treatment and the interests of the psychiatric industry and drug industry. They do not promote the interests or protect the rights of persons accused of mental illness. They say that they protect their right to treatment, but there is no such right.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/03/the-illegality-of-forced-drugging-and-electroshock/

The Illegality of Forced Drugging and Electroshock
MadInAmerica.com
Posted on March 21, 2012
by Jim Gottstein