Prompted by “Former judge takes on the drug war”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/06/former-judge-takes-on-the-drug-war-2/
“Former Federal Judge Nancy Gertner… stood before a crowd at The Aspen Ideas Festival to denounce most punishments that she imposed.”
“Among 500 sanctions that she handed down, ’80 percent I believe were unfair and disproportionate,’ she said. ‘I left the bench in 2011 to join the Harvard faculty to write about those stories––to write about how it came to pass that I was obliged to sentence people to terms that, frankly, made no sense under any philosophy.'”
Who’s she ultimately talking to? The court of public opinion — where (btw) the case must first be won to drive home righteous political survival (or lose elections), even if it means opposing very powerful lobbies (e.g. law enforcement).
Frankly I should call this journal Frankly, because my grounded and completely reasoned approach (perfectly consistent with original national intent and common sense) that would put a relatively instant stop to law madness from reason madness (e.g. end Certain Drug Prohibition) would save millions of people and put our nation on its intended path towards optimal liberty for us all. That’s instead of the metaphorical national fire from everyone believing their definition of liberty is sensible, despite the excessively obscene discriminatory quality and outrageous lack of experimental scientific validity for objective (i.e. fair, so just) law.
While severely torturously wearing down some cannabis illegality (after basically four decades) with essentially no judicial sign of addressing the other illicit drugs that also require legality to prevent the severely disastrous impact of the war on some drugs, millions of people are suffering (while millions more — perhaps including you, even if only your beloved teen is judicially caught experimenting with illicit drugs — remain vulnerable). That’s essentially due to ‘conservative political leftists’ not wanting to compromise their blatantly illegal ‘Commerce Clause hinge’ against historically justifiably limited government power, so brutally compromising serious legal leverage against the aforementioned powerful lobbying force necessarily relying upon constitutional law for their strength on the issue.
Broadly publicly prove law cannot possibly be on their side by any rational measure (e.g. obvious illegal redefining of the Commerce Clause, and similarly illegally redefining constitutional amendment nine to outrageously decouple our fundamental rights from necessary judicial strength to truly honor and respect the unalienable right to liberty that too many people had to — and still have to — brutally fight and die for), and the war on some drugs basically comes to a screeching halt by way of sanity.
Respecting liberty means drug abuse can only be addressed by effective education, not a ban by recklessly equating use and abuse, despite the completely published set of information proving most drug use occurs without objectively proven harm (as opposed to weakly suggested harm from “heavy use” or abuse).
That path of compromising just law for political points also makes no sense under any philosophy (including the one insisting that a government must have dominant power over our lives to supposedly coerce equality through an overwhelmingly complex set of unconstitutional and easily questionable regulations never really forming equality — e.g. the poor are still terribly poor).
When I say we live in an effectively lawless nation (despite over 70,000 pages of federal regulations alone), it’s validated by judicial statements such as “made no sense under any philosophy”. It’s also validated by a Supreme Court Justice…
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
We have a rogue government (hand in hand with abusive private sector operatives) focused on defining their power from elitism (instead of sanely primarily focused on public safety for community strength to earn legitimate power), because the court of public opinion is ineffective against that obvious public enemy number one — the demonstrably most dangerous terrorists are within our borders and even in the halls of power scaremongering the masses into supporting imprisoning large numbers of other people for a senseless philosophy.
The public is largely easily manipulated by the government through severe educational lapses (e.g. many forms of the Big Lie technique, including that within formal education) and an equally severe conflict of interest with mainstream media effectively rendering them as state-run media (hint: our “public servants” continuously supply newsworthy information about the tragic events dominating mainstream news).
We have an ineffective court of public opinion, because people are not taught to respect law — often a lame and boring subject. Even activists too often never fairly look to ‘whole truth’ logic to get to the root of a problem to encourage a solid solution, but the obscenely complex mess of judicial construction with an eye merely on pressing hard to tweak its corrupt surface for their “progress” (passionately spinning arguments — i.e. pressing the ‘partial truth = whole truth’ scam at best — to contribute to the mess).
With always deep appreciation for my audience, I continue writing largely to the chirping crickets here — a lone wolf (albeit with loving family and friends) howling about the factually utter ruin of humanity’s judicial environment.
“First they ignore you…” (Gandhi)
They do indeed, but that will never stop me from pressing the right message unethically ignored ultimately in the cosmic court of reality itself. The ‘conservative political leftist’ butchering of American law (with no respect for self-evident and unalienable rights on either side of the political aisle) caused the war on some drugs — not Nixon formally declaring that war to utter Republican hypocrisy still oozing everywhere these days (publicly exposing that ooze being a powerful corrective focal point for sensible activism).
That’s an undeniable fact, and to ignore that fact is inevitably to ignore what’s right (and left — pun apologetically intended).
To ignore that demonstrable righteousness is to beg for righteous suffering, which I assure you through reality’s sensible “philosophy” is forthcoming for its necessary balancing effect, because reality never falls for the Big Lie technique, just semi-upholds it until the imbalance forces reality to enforce its uncorruptible law.
Every action is an opposite and equal reaction. That means every set of actions (including yours, regardless of your power status within humanity) is an opposite and equal set of reactions.
That law applies to form actual equality within reality. No human law is needed, because proper discouragement against intentional abuse come from simply educating that most powerful point throughout posterity to truly send the right message to children — reality is supremely always paying attention, so you never get away with abusive behavior, hardcore scientifically speaking.
You want to challenge that fact (e.g. on a scientific and/or judicial basis)? My comments section patiently remains available.
You want to embrace that fact? Join our Liberty Shield campaign to finally necessarily bring the scientific method (which works brilliantly in technology for worst through best) to law for actual justice (so optimal morality and equality). That includes scientifically improving language itself (which is naturally critical for better human transaction, so survival) to form the needed verbal certainties on par with mathematical ones (e.g. liberty is the condition of being free from restriction or control). Become a scientific constitutionalist now for public safety and actual human progress, instead of continuing to directly or apathetically promote torturous judicial corruption with subjective ‘feel good’ results at pathetic best.
Prove you care, if you dare?