The Right To Bear Arms

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

[NOTE: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), was first nominated by POTUS EISENHOWER January 12, 1956 to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (often called the “Mini Supreme Court”) to fill the position created by the death of Judge Harold M. Stephens, was confirmed by the Senate 28 March that year, and on 23 June 1969 was nominated to be Chief Justice of the SCOTUS by POTUS NIXON following the resignation of CJ Earl Warren, who was also nominated by POTUS EISENHOWER, and  presided over numerous landmark Constitutional law cases and wrote the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Loving v. Virginia (1967). CJ Warren also led the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of POTUS KENNEDY, was Governor of California from 1943-1953, and widely considered one of the nation’s most influential Chief Justices. CJ Burger was known more for his administrative acumen than for his intellect, and in 1974 authored the unanimous decision in United States v. Nixon, which rejected POTUS NIXON’s claim of Executive Privilege in the midst of the Watergate crimes, and eventually chose to resign, rather than face certain impeachment, thereby becoming the first POTUS to ever resign from office.]

Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court, official portrait

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides — setting a new record for our capital.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments — the Bill of Rights — were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new “monster” national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment’s guarantees — against “establishment of religion,” “free exercise” of religion, free speech and free press — came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a “national” or “standing” army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison’s proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:

“to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty … Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins.”

We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the “right” guaranteed; in short, it was declared “necessary” in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word “because” was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the “state militia” serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns — rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols — with all firearms, including what are now called

“Praise God!” -OR- “God Damn!”? You be the judge.

Today (June 26, 2022), the much-expected, leaked Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392) was publicly released on the Supreme Court’s website [see: https://www.SupremeCourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf], which the unjust Justice Samuel Alito summarized thusly:

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The 6 right-wing radicals similarly ignored the Constitution’s 9th Amendment, which is the statement that unenumerated rights exist:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Six Justices, including the Joker in Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and ultra-right-wing radical extremists Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett — all whom were nominated by Banana Republicans — overturned a very-nearly 50-year precedent.

By so doing, they made themselves out as liars, because ALL of the 6 in public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, asserted that Roe v. Wade, a decision issued on January 22, 1973, was “settled law.”

• In 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was asked

WV Charter School Company Robs Kids of Education, Puts Taxpayer$ Money in CEO’s Wallet

In an entry entitled “Denis Smith Warns West Virginians About Charter Schools” published today (Sunday, January 9, 2022, 9:00AM), in the introductory portion of that entry, Research Professor of Education and historian Dr. Diane Ravitch, PhD, wrote that,

“Denis Smith was a teacher and an administrator in West Virginia. He moved to Ohio where he worked in the State Education Department. His last position before retiring was in the office of charter schools (misleadingly called “community schools” in Ohio, even when they operate for profit).”

Dr. Diane Ravitch, PhD

Dr. Ravitch also wrote that “the link works but doesn’t permit me to copy any print.”

She was referring to a guest Opinion-Editorial authored by Denis Smith which was published January 3, 2022 in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, which is WV’s largest newspaper, about a recent state judicial ruling, that attempts by K12 Inc., a Wall $treet-traded, private, for-profit charter school management company, to create a publicly-unaccountable school district inside a school district that only they could control, was illegal under state law. He further opined about the miasmatic mess that the state’s legislators had created with their charter school law.

Nationally, there is an almost overwhelming abundance of complaints from coast-to-coast about the total costs and losses, not all of which are monetary, that have come directly from the charter school “movement,” which is, at its core, a private profiteering effort funded by public tax dollars, regardless whether the charter school is for-profit, or not-for-profit. No more, no less. It is, in essence, an unaccountable system which owes fealty to corporate owners, not to the taxpayers who fund them. For additional information, see:
https://NetworkForPublicEducation.org/chartered-for-profit/

As a courtesy to her, to her readers, and to others, the Op-Ed to which she referred is

On Interpreting The Constitution

Amy Coney Barrett before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary for her nomination to the United States Supreme Court

Much has been made in recent days about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Barrett has her critics. I am one. But there are other criticisms, including of the rushed process, which I too, hold. Rushed things hardly ever have good results.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has indicated that the full Senate will most likely have a vote on Judge Barrett on Monday, 26 October 2020 – a mere 31 days since her nomination on 26 September 2020. In stark contrast, her initial nomination to the Federal judiciary took 5 months 24 days.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published a paper entitled “Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee,” (R44235) first published on October 19, 2015, and updated periodically, and most recently on September 28, 2020, which answers some essentially basic questions about the nomination process, and provides background, and historical overview for the same. The “CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.”

Regarding Judge Barrett’s Judicial “style” which she and others call “textualism,” and or “originalism,” it seems to me to be a rather bizarre way to think of the document which forms the foundation of our government, which has endured since it was written and ratified in the late 1700’s. Doubtless, the Founders, and those alive then could not begin to conceive of plucking stardust from an asteroid (which NASA recently did) to analyze, communicating instantaneously with someone on the opposite side of the globe using video teleconferencing on a hand-held device, traveling faster than the speed of sound, splitting the atom, and using laser light to communicate, so why would we begin to imagine that we should adhere to some arbitrary, or even capricious standard to interpret what it means to, or for us, today?

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot expressed it best in this brief story, why “originalism” and “textualism” are misguided rules.

CHICAGO (WBBM NEWSRADIO) — Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she is preparing for when Amy Coney Barrett takes her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. She was asked to share her thoughts Tuesday on the judge and minced no words.

Mayor Lightfoot was first asked if she views the U.S. Constitution as Judge Barrett does, as an “originalist.”

Originalists firmly believe all statements in the U.S. Constitution must be strictly interpreted based on the original understanding at the time the Constitution was adopted. They do not believe in the concept of a “Living Constitution” that can be interpreted in the context of current times.

“You ask a gay, black woman if she is an originalist? No, ma’am, I am not,” Lightfoot laughed.

“That the Constitution didn’t consider me a person in any way, shape or form because I’m a woman, because I’m black, because I’m gay? I am not an originalist. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that it is a document that the founders intended to evolve and what they did was set the framework for how our country was going to be different from any other.”

“But originalists say that, ‘Let’s go back to 1776 and whatever was there in the original language, that’s it.’ That language excluded, now, over 50 percent of the country. So, no I’m not an originalist.”

Mayor Lightfoot said she’s deeply worried about some of Judge Barrett’s stated views, for instance, being against gay marriage.

“I deeply worry about this woman’s stated views. She’s on the record on a number of different things, not the least of which is thinking that gay marriage is something that shouldn’t be countenanced. And she’s got soulmates in Justice Thomas and others, who think that the decision by the Supreme Court…should somehow be rolled back,” Lightfoot said.

“What should I tell my daughter — that somehow now my wife and I are no longer married? That we’re no longer legitimately recognized in the eyes of the law? That is dangerous, dangerous territory. And what about a woman’s right to choose? We’re gonna keep re-litigating this issue, and we’re gonna make abortion illegal, as Amy Coney Barrett thinks it should be?”

The Mayor also called Republicans “hypocrites” for pushing the Barrett nomination when they put off taking up the Merrick Garland nomination by President Obama.

“The hypocrisy is something that is a bitter pill for me to swallow,” Lightfoot said.

Roy Moore: Threat, Or Savior? Examine his history to see!

First of all, let me state for the record: I am no fan of Roy Moore, nor have I ever been. So  if you’re closed minded enough to shut me out at this point, it’s your loss.

As a native, and long-time (almost lifetime) Alabamian with numerous family & friends still residing there, I “have a dog in that fight,” as is said. And to be certain, I love Sweet Home. What’s NOT to like about a state with one of the nation’s most significant diversity of flora and fauna, with mountains and beaches, clean water (for the most part), and moderate climate? It’s her politicians I loathe.

Sure, whenever the word “Alabama” comes up, most folks outside the state simply roll their eyes, and shake their heads. I mean, after all, who could forget George C. Wallace who once infamously said following his 1958 gubernatorial electoral defeat, “I was out-niggered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be out-niggered again.”

Who could forget the host state where horrific actions by former Governor George C. Wallace, who in his 1963 gubernatorial inaugural infamously said “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” and his notorious stand in the schoolhouse door a few months later at Foster Auditorium on the campus of the University of Alabama, in Tuscaloosa on June 11, 1963?

Who could forget the deaths of 4 little girls in the KKK bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, the Bus Boycott, lunch counter sit-ins, Bloody Sunday, Birmingham’s cruel Police Chief Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor, high-pressure fire hoses, police dogs, and the Selma to Montgomery March?

There’s no question that it is

All Trumped Up Over The FISA Court

Imagine, or pretend for a moment that you were President of the United States.

You would be literally be “the boss of” and have access to a vast trove of over 14 different American Intelligence & National Security agencies.

If so desired, you could watch video of the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, see photographs of his corpse and burial at sea, and examine the report made of his DNA following his death and capture. By virtue of the Office of the President, there would be virtually nothing to which you would not entitled to know, or view in the agencies of the United States government. You would be able to see the code-named TOP SECRETS of our government. You would have full and unfettered access to the highest levels of secret information… including Nuclear Access Codes.

The Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, State, and Justice, along with all their myriad divisions and offices – ALL Executive level agencies – which includes the FBI, US Marshals Service, Secret Service, DEA, ATF, Coast Guard, and more – would ALL be under your ultimate control, and you would be their Boss.

The CIA is an independent agency.

Because the FBI and the NSA are Executive level offices/agencies, it is NOT a stretch to imagine that the President ~COULD~

“Too Big To Fail” Banks Get Bailout, Gave Customers The Shaft

Update: Saturday, 20 February 2021
NOTE: TO THE READER: As you read any story mentioning, involving or written by Donald V. Watkins, Sr., it must be borne in mind that he is now a Federal Convict, and along with his son, Donald V. Watkins, Jr., was found guilty of numerous charges. “Donald Watkins Sr. was convicted of seven counts of wire fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy. Donald Watkins Jr. was convicted of one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy.” As of the date of this note, he is in Federal Custody at Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center, an administrative security facility, having been relocated away from the minimum security Federal Prison Camp on Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama.

DONALD V. WATKINS
Register Number: 36223-001
Age:	72
Race:	Black
Sex:	Male
Located at: Oklahoma City FTC
Release Date: 01/10/2024

Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Alabama
FATHER AND SON SENTENCED TO PRISON IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR INVESTMENT FRAUD SCHEME
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/father-and-son-sentenced-prison-multimillion-dollar-investment-fraud-scheme

Here also is the SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT dated December 2018 entitled as:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DONALD V. WATKINS, SR. and DONALD V. WATKINS, JR. – 2:18-cr-166-KOB-TMP
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1116081/download

See also: Donald Watkins, Son Sentenced For Federal Fraud Convictions
Updated Jul 16, 2019; Posted Jul 16, 2019
https://www.al.com/news/2019/07/donald-watkins-son-to-be-sentenced-for-federal-fraud-convictions.html

See also: Donald Watkins’ $1.5 Billion Question: Was It Ever Real?
Updated Feb 23, 2019; Posted Feb 23, 2019
https://www.al.com/news/2019/02/donald-watkins-15-billion-question-was-it-ever-real.html

---

Chalk One Up for the Working Man

By Donald V. Watkins
©Copyrighted and Published (via Facebook) on December 18, 2016
Used with permission

On Thursday, I tried a case for a close friend on mine in the Jefferson County, Alabama District Court in Bessemer, Alabama. My friend is a hard working Bessemer resident and family man whose world was turned upside down when Citibank sold his credit card account to San Diego-based junk debt buyer, Midland Funding, LLC. He is one of millions of bank credit card customers each year whose accounts are bundled in loan pools and then sold to junk debt buyers without the customer’s knowledge.

Midland Funding is one of several mega junk debt buyers in America. This group of financial sharks buys unsecured bank debt for pennies on a dollar and then strong arms debtors who miss one or more of their monthly payments. Midland is part of a multi-billion industry of shady financial predators.

In my friend’s case, Citibank sold his account to Midland Funding. The balance on the account was $6,800. My friend paid his credit card monthly on a regular basis, but had an unexpected hiccup in his monthly cash flow a couple of years after he opened the account. As a result he failed to make a couple of his payments on time. When this occurred Citibank sold my friend’s account to Midland, and Midland eventually sued my friend. This is how my friend became my client.

Remember, Citibank had a similar hiccup during the Great Recession of 2008. The bank requested and received a total of $181.6 billion in federal bailout assistance to keep from collapsing. In fact, Citibank led the banking industry’s “welfare queens” by receiving more financial bailout assistance than any big bank in the U.S.

Citibank’s “Thank You” to the taxpayers like my client, whose tax dollars made the financial bailout possible for these big banks, was the low-down act of selling his credit card account to a shark like Midland Funding. The big banks were quick to take taxpayer-sponsored financial assistance, but slow to give taxpayers similar financial assistance in return.

[Editor’s Note: Alamerica Bank, which is

A Better Argument For Alabama #ALpolitics To Legalize, Regulate & Tax Marijuana

Recently, on February 23, 2016, AL.com published an OpEd entitled “Would legalizing cannabis solve Alabama’s budget problems?” written by Reggie C. Pulliam, whom was identified as “a resident of Gulf Shores who has worked on public policy and criminal justice reform in Washington, D.C.”

I found his Op-Ed unconvincing because it’s poorly written.

The Colorado Department of Revenue reported that for December 2015 (State of Colorado Marijuana Taxes, Licenses, and Fees Transfers and Distribution December 2015 Sales Reported in January 2016), Total All Marijuana Taxes, Licenses, and Fees was $13,247,434.

The year-to-date increase was $4,689,293.

Based upon the December figure, on an annualized basis, that’s $158,969,208… which is not exactly chump change.
(See “Alabama Senate Approves Shifting $100 Million Away From Schools” published September 15, 2015.)

Linked here is the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Colorado Marijuana Tax Data.

Figuring into the state cost : benefit analysis & calculations also is a decrease in costs associated with

Here’s Why People Should Be Like Dogs

My puppy loves me.

I love my puppy.

I don’t want to marry my puppy.

My puppy is spayed.

My puppy could probably care less about mating.

I feed my puppy quite well.

My puppy loves me.

My puppy walks alongside me off lead.

I don’t want to marry my puppy.

No one in Alabama has EVER been forced to marry anyone.

Anyone who says otherwise is

History Looks Forward: SCOTUS Chief Justice John G. Roberts Appointment No Accident

It wasn’t by accident that George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as SCOTUS Chief Justice, because he’s the SECOND YOUNGEST of ALL the Justices (Elena Kagan b.4/28/1960 is younger than John Roberts b.1/27/1955 by 5 years, 3 months, 3 days), and his influence could be felt for perhaps 40+ years. At his appointment, John G. Roberts was aged 48 years, only 4 years older than the First Chief Justice, John Jay (served 1789-1795), who was aged 44 years when he took the oath of office.

FYI, the youngest Associate Justice was Joseph Story (served 1811-1845), who was aged 32 years when he took the oath of office.

The longest serving Associate Justice was William O. Douglas who served 36 years, 7 months, and 8 days from 1939 to 1975.

The longest serving Chief Justice was Chief Justice John Marshall who served 34 years, 5 months and 11 days from 1801 to 1835.

The average number of years that Justices have served is 16.

However… the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice from 1789 through 1970 was 14.9 years.

For those Justices who have

Official Sources: Huntsville Hospital gets low patient safety rating, patients’ lives at risk

Realistically, what does that mean for you, your loved ones or friends if – God forbid – they’re hospitalized at Huntsville Hospital?

It means that when you, your loved ones’ or friends’ are a patient in the hospital, you or they could get an infection, or some other serious bug or problem while being treated for something else entirely different. And by so doing, it could make your stay more unpleasant, and in fact, could increase the risk of complications of your treatment – up to, and including your death – was well as increase the length of your stay, among other factors.

What does that mean for the Hospital?

Because insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid have STOPPED paying for the treatment of preventable problems that are a direct result of hospitalization, it means that Huntsville Hospital will be stuck with the bill (the costs of treating their own mistakes upon you while you’re there)… and will try to pass the cost along to you to recoup the cost of the loss, which is a DIRECT result of their own sloppiness.

Huntsville Hospital has essentially become a monopolistic monstrosity of an enterprise, gobbling up numerous hospitals in the North Alabama region, including BOTH hospitals in Decatur, the only hospital in Athens, the only hospital in Red Bay, Helen Keller Hospital in Tuscumbia area of the Shoals, and the only hospital in Lawrence county.

Meanwhile, Huntsville hospital has fought tooth-and-nail to keep other hospitals OUT of competition in the Huntsville market, and spent untold millions of dollars in a protracted legal battle against Crestwood Hospital – and continues to spend millions to prevent Crestwood Hospital from offering services that would benefit the entire city and county.

Such anti-competitive practice has all been accomplished by and through the state of Alabama‘s Certificate Of Need Board.

The commentary of Mr. Burr Ingram – Huntsville Hospital’s official mouthpiece – which is contained in this article is entirely and wholly unwarranted, and weasel-like.

Not only that, but Huntsville Hospital is NOT a Nursing Magnet Hospital.

There are many things Huntsville Hospital is not.

And sadly, quality is one of them.

—

Watchdog Report: Consumer Reports gives both hospitals in Huntsville low safety ratings

Published: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 9:06 AM     Updated: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 9:30 AM

By Challen Stephens, The Huntsville Times

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — Consumer Reports magazine ranked the two hospitals in Huntsville as the least safe in Alabama. But the magazine’s list of hospitals is far from complete.

“We were kind of perplexed at some of what it reported,” said Burr Ingram, spokesman at Huntsville Hospital. “When you think about it, it’s fashionable for everyone to rate hospitals. And Consumer Reports is the latest to use public data that is available.

“But at times, it’s difficult to know how these ratings come about.”

Huntsville Hospital, The Huntsville Times

The magazine’s August edition lists scores in four safety categories. Both Huntsville Hospital and Crestwood Medical Center received low marks for poor communication with patients and for high rates of infection. Both received mediocre marks for high rates of re-admission and unnecessary scans.

Yet the report ranked

The New Radicals: Republicans and their Activist Supreme Court

“The signature of the Roberts Court has been its willingness, even its eagerness, to overturn the work of legislatures. Brandishing a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court has either struck down or raised questions about virtually every state and local gun-control law in the nation. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided earlier this year, the Court gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law in service of a legal theory that contradicts about a century of law at the Court.”

—

Precedent and Prologue

Comment
by Jeffrey Toobin, December 6, 2010

Bush v Gore was the beginning of Republicans’ use of Judicial Activism

Momentous Supreme Court cases tend to move quickly into the slipstream of the Court’s history. In the first ten years after Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that ended the doctrine of separate but equal in public education, the Justices cited the case more than twenty-five times. In the ten years after Roe v. Wade, the abortion-rights decision of 1973, there were more than sixty-five references to that landmark. This month marks ten years since the Court, by a vote of five-to-four, terminated the election of 2000 and delivered the Presidency to George W. Bush. Over that decade, the Justices have provided a verdict of sorts on Bush v. Gore by the number of times they have cited it: zero.

Both sides had their reasons for consigning the decision to history and leaving it there. In his concession speech on the day after the decision, Al Gore said simply, “It’s time for me to go.” He meant it, and he left politics for a life of entrepreneurship and good works. George W. Bush, for his part, found little reason to dwell on the controversial nature of his ascension to office, and in his memoir, “Decision Points,” he devotes less than a page to the Supreme Court decision. (“My first response was relief,” he writes of his reaction.) In public appearances, Antonin Scalia, a member of the majority in Bush v. Gore, regularly offers this message to people who question him about the decision: “Get over it!”

Even at the time, Bush v. Gore was treated as a kind of novelty item, a one-off decision that applied only to the peculiar facts then before the Justices. The majority itself seemed to want it that way. In the most famous sentence from the decision, the Justices wrote, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.” (Unlike most weighty decisions, Bush v. Gore had no single author and was delineated “per curiam,” or by the Court, a designation the Justices usually reserve for minor cases.) In light of all these admonitions to leave the case be, might getting over it be the best advice?

Actually, no. To return briefly to the distant world of chads, hanging and otherwise, it’s worth recalling what Bush v. Gore was about. The pervasive uncertainty about the results of the election in Florida—at the time, Bush led by five hundred and thirty-seven votes out of nearly six million cast—prompted the Florida courts, interpreting Florida election law, to order a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes; that is, ballots that indicated no Presidential preference or more than one. (Chads were the tiny paper rectangles that voters were supposed to push through punch-card ballots.) That recount had already begun on Saturday, December 9th, when five Justices—Scalia, William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas—issued a stay, barring the Florida authorities from continuing their labors. Three days later, the same five issued the per-curiam decision that stopped the recount once and for all.

What made the decision in Bush v. Gore so startling was that it was the work of Justices who were considered, to greater or lesser extents, judicial conservatives. On many occasions, these Justices had said

When Healers Harm – Alabama Hospital Wars: Huntsville Hospital v Crestwood Medical Center

Why, why, WHY!?!

There’s nothing better to do with precious financial resources – especially in tough economic times?

Pay lawyers instead of using that same money to care for and treat patients, improve outcomes, and increase patient & staff satisfaction?

And what does that say about your concern for patients? Yeah… that’s right – you love wasting money on a court fight rather than using that money to heal people.

This problem exists precisely because of a Certificate of Need law in Alabama that specifically prohibits anyone from thinking about building, expanding or creating a healthcare treatment facility without first going to court.

I will say this, however – even with the CON law & board in place, there is no requirement for hospitals to sue each other over the matter. And yet, they do.

It’s time to eliminate the CON law and CON Board in Alabama.

—

Crestwood Hospital wins legal fight with Huntsville Hospital

Does Ann Romney have horse problems? Super Hit, her old dressage horse wonders. So do we.

Ann Romney with her horse, Super Hit, in a 2006 photo. (Terri Miller/Handout)

Super Hit.

Who or what’s that?

Oh… just another dressage horse the Romney’s once owned – and tried to sell.

Selling horses is not illegal, immoral, or unethical.

However, to attempt to sell a horse that is so doped up in an effort to masquerade, conceal or hide a defective, sick, injured or wounded condition… well, now, that’s a horse of a different color.

Ann Romney was named as a defendant in such a case.

Here’s what Dr. Stephen Soule, DVM – an expert in equine podiatry – said of the horse Mrs. Romney was trying to sell:

“In my 38 years of practice, I have never come across a drug screen such as this where the horse has been administered so many different medications at the same time.”

This was not some long-ago issue, for the complaint was filed February 10, 2010 in California Superior Court, Ventura County, is case number 56-2010-00372707-CU-FR-SIM, and was set for trial September 12, 2011.

Here’s the nut of the case:

In 2010, a San Diego woman – Catherine Norris – sued Mrs. Romney, dressage trainer Jan Ebeling and his wife Amy for fraud, claiming that the severity of a foot defect in Super Hit, a dressage horse she purchased from Mrs. Romney for $125,000, was concealed.

The expert equine veterinarian, Dr. Stephen Soule, stated in the record that, “In my professional opinion, based on 38 years of experience in equine veterinary medicine and in conducting nearly 2000 pre-purchase examinations during this time, the HA-VETALOG injections to the left front coffin joint coupled with Super Hit’s inconsistent show record, decline in test scores, consistency in the remarks of different show judges on score sheets that Super Hit was “tense,” had “tension” and “tight” and “stiff,” and the fact that he was not shown for nearly 2½ years prior to the sale in February 2008, Super Hit was more likely than not chronically lame prior to Catherine Norris’ purchase in February 2008.”

A pre-purchase drug screen/toxicology study performed February 13, 2008 by Center for Tox Services, Inc. – an Arizona lab – on 6 blood collection tubes drawn from the horse Super Hit found Butorphanol (a synthetic opioid pain killer), Detomadine (a α2-adrenergic agonist, used as a sedative in horses), romifidine (another sedative mainly used on large animals such as horses), and xylazine (a medication used in horses for sedation, anesthesia, muscle relaxation, and pain relief) in the horse’s system.

Also named in the suit was Dr. Doug Herthen, DVM, the veterinarian who treated Super Hit, and who purposely failed to disclose the nature of his relationship with Ann Romney and Super Hit to the purchaser, Mrs. Norris. In his testimony, Dr. Soule wrote that, “The professional ethics standard in veterinary medicine is to disclose any implied, apparent, or actual conflicts of interest before agreeing to conduct the pre-purchase examination. In other words, there is no such thing as dual representation without disclosure. In my professional opinion, the failure of Doug Herthel to disclose to Catherine Norris his existing and/or prior professional relationship with the defendants Amy and Jan Eberling, prior to the pre-purchase examination, was a breach of his professional duties and ethics.”

For very nearly a decade, Mrs. Romney has held a financial and ownership stake in The Acres, a horse training ranch about 45 miles northwest of Los Angeles, which is also owned by Jan & Amy Eberling. Mr. Eberling is a dressage trainer from Germany. With the Romneys, the Eberlings own Rob Rom Enterprises LLC, a foreign corporation registered in Delaware, which buys and trains dressage horses.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous is nothing new for the Romneys, because in a 1994 interview with the Boston Globe while Mitt was campaigning for Massachusetts governor, Ann described their years as “struggling students,” saying that “neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock [from his father] that we could sell off a little at a time.”

Yeah. That’s gotta’ be a struggle.

Of course, it goes without saying – but here it is, anyway – that, in an interview with Neal Cavuto of Fox News in March 2012, Ann Romney said, “I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing.” Many people would probably find that interesting, too – particularly given that Mitt’s estimated wealth is in excess of $250 Million. Perhaps $100,000 horses are but chump change to that crowd.

The New York Times covered the issue with the following story, which also mentions the $77,000 tax deduction the Romneys took in 2010 for Rafalca, another of the Romneys’ expensive dressage horses.

Other newspapers covering the story included the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Because of the location of the case

Tilting with the wind? Is the SCOTUS driving America back to Jim Crow?

As I’ve said before, some folks often say they want to “take America back.”

Problem is, they never tell you how far back they wanna’ go.

Before Civil Rights?

Before Suffrage?

While you may not be a religious person, there is a lesson in the Scripture that addresses “going back” – and we all know we CAN’T go back, it’s impossible.

The book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, verse 10 says, “Don’t ask, “Why were things better in the old days than they are now?” It isn’t wisdom that leads you to ask this!” (GWT)

We can’t go back in our childhood, we cant’ go back to yesterday, yesteryear or back in time in any way. We all move forward. We are meant for FORWARD travel. It should seem obvious from even natural observation.

That’s why we have eyes in the FRONT of our face, rather than in the rear.

—

Retired federal judge blasts direction of U.S. Supreme Court

Published: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 5:45 PM
Updated: Monday, May 21, 2012, 7:05 AM
By Thomas Spencer — The Birmingham News

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Once a guardian of civil rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has been rolling back those protections, said retired U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon this evening, delivering the keynote address at the 2012 Law Enforcement and Civil Rights Conference presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.

Clemon, who in 1980 became the first black federal judge in Alabama, said since the 1986 appointment of William Rehnquist as chief justice, Supreme Court rulings have gutted the core of landmark decisions such as Brown v. the Board of Education, the landmark ruling that declared school segregation to be illegal. The Voting Rights Act, Clemon said, “has almost been interpreted out of existence.

“With the rise of the Rehnquist court, our wall against the flood became the flood itself. We have seen, in the past quarter century, civil rights on the scaffold.”

The conference,

What’s the Buzz about?

Google rarely contacts Gmail users via email, but we are making an exception to let you know that we’ve reached a settlement in a lawsuit regarding Google Buzz (http://buzz.google.com), a service we launched within Gmail in February of this year.

Shortly after its launch, we heard from a number of people who were concerned about privacy. In addition, we were sued by a group of Buzz users and recently reached a settlement in this case.

The settlement acknowledges that we

“Why do you want to work for Huntsville Hospital?” A Lesson in (dis)honesty.

Honesty… is it ALWAYS the best policy?

Recently, I’ve found that some search engine terms which have led to this blog include this question “Why do you want to work at Huntsville Hospital“?

In Huntsville, Alabama – where I resided for many years – there are ONLY TWO hospitals in town.

One, Huntsville Hospital, is a public not-for-profit, and the other, a much smaller Crestwood Medical Center, is a private, for-profit hospital.

Many of the professors and instructors at the Nursing School from which I graduated have privately expressed their frustrations to their students, and to me, about Huntsville Hospital’s virtual monopoly on the hospital-based healthcare delivery in Huntsville, AL.

Part of that problem stems in large part from

A Short History of “Privacy” in American Jurisprudence

Privacy

[Note: This entry was originally entitled “Privacy,” and was transferred to this site, having previously been posted by me on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 2:57pm.]

“Privacy” is a relatively new term in American jurisprudence, and public dialogue. Former US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, an AL native, wrote against “privacy” in his dissent in Griswold v Connecticut.

The development of our right to privacy emerged, interestingly enough, from Griswold v Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court Case which challenged the state’s 1879 criminalizing of a married couple’s use of contraceptive devices. Appellants were the

UAHKiller “I’m Dr. Amy Bishop!”: She ain’t crazy; she’s just a mean ol’ bitch

A preliminary hearing was held yesterday in Madison County, AL Circuit Court for UAHKiller Amy Bishop.

It only took Madison County District Attorney Rob Broussard 25 minutes

Wachovia Bank Guilty of Mexican Drug Money Laundering

“For a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows.” 1 Timothy 6:10 (YLT)

Wachovia Bank officials in Miami plead guilty to federal drug money laundering charges in Miami. As part of their agreement, the bank will forfeit $110,000,000 ($110 Million) and be fined $50,000,000 ($50 Million).

Federal prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, and Drug Enforcement Administration officials found detailed evidence supporting

Screw You and Your Family Too! -OR- The Battle of Wall Street: BIG BUSINESS v everybody else

When you sell a thing, you no longer own it.

Right?

Not so in the make-believe world of Wall Street!

In the make-believe world of Wall Street, when you sell a thing, you STILL own it!

Huh?

Well, Lehman Brothers “sold” $50 BILLION of their assets, but kept possession of them, and made it appear as if they no longer owned them. Normal folks would consider that fraud, or theft. So does a U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Examiner.

Financial regulators in the United Kingdom are investigating bankrupt American Lehman Brothers for hiding more than $50,000,000,000 ($50 BILLION) in their accounts, through criminal transactions nick-named “repo transactions.”

What could you do with an extra $200 or so?

We promised to pay your retirement pension, but now, we won’t. Sosumi… you bastards!

For those “in the know,” “Sosumi” is the name of a computer sound which Apple Computer of Cupertino, CA created and has used for quite some time.

I love Apple Computer, well, not genuinely “love,” but have always believed them to be the best – bar none – computer operating system, superior in every way to Microsoft’s Windows OS. Folks used to say, “Oh, the Mac is good for graphics,” and other such nonsense, even when the Mac OS was in v7.x.

Today, I ask folks, “What’s the Internet all about?” Graphics, graphics, graphics, and media, media, media.

And still, some folks continue to use the infection-prone Windows. Oh well. Some folks never learn.

On to Sosumi.

If you’ve ever heard of the “Beatles,” (and who hasn’t?) you should be aware that