Although it is generally understood that anyone who thinks about the matter with any depth at all would support me in my election against Judge James Cox [especially given that Cox's confederates are trying to con the electorate into forfeiting their vital franchise by suggesting, in an exercise of arrogant elitism, that voters should not vote against incumbents!], a question occasionally arises why, even though lovers of the Constitution obviously support me, would police support me? Oh, that is clear.
Most police officers are lovers of the Constitution too. They are sworn to uphold it as aggressively and sincerely as I am, and their friends and families have the same interest as anyone else in a neutral, unbiased, competent, courageous judiciary. To be sure, part of my professional function in the courts has been to counter the efforts of police when their conduct violates people's liberties. That was also part of the professional function of fellow constitutional defense attorney John Adams, the founder of the American conservative movement. That does not translate to a hostility between the properly functioning constitutional defense attorney and the police. Their job is to move fast and apprehend wrongdoers and to interdict wrongdoing; the role of the defense attorney is to make certain the fast movement comports with constitutional norms and is supported by sufficient proofs properly collected; and the role of the judge is to listen to the defense attorney's presentation about the lawfulness and sufficiency of that fast movement and to apply the law with neutrality, propriety, insight, scholarship, and courage.
That is, in a simplistic model for discussion purposes, the police enforces the statutory law; the defense attorney invokes constitutional law; the judge applies it all to serve the overarching meaning and substance of a rule of law. Police know that without being slowed by the counterpoise of the defense attorney, we would have tyranny; the defense attorney knows that without the appropriate movement of the police in the community, we would have anarchy; and the judge knows that without properly regulating both ends of that dynamic, we would not have a rule of law but would instead have governmental lawlessness. And no one is to be benefited by the latter, because the marvelous experiment in Philadelphia in 1787 could come loose at the seams if there were not the proper accommodation between power and license decreed by the Framers.
Police in many areas of my career have come to me for quiet, and sometimes less than quiet, assistance, because they know the risks to themselves and to their loved ones when the law that is intended to be enforced in their favor is not. And they know that I will courageously and knowledgeably and discretely do so, and I have.
In one community, where I had developed certain, and unsurpassed, notoriety for my ability to enlist the assistance of the Constitution to benefit clients against overweening government, the issues of what we are all about came into stark relief. Two police agencies were having spoiled brat feuds against each other.
The police of one arrested a member of the other for DUI. Then the police of the other arrested a member of the first for DUI. The officers victimized in both agencies by both agencies hired me. I did my magic for both, employing my constitutional gifts to assist both, and I got both cases dismissed, and then I sat them both down and inquired if they now understood why I do what I do and what it is all about.
They did.
Until people get victimized by overbearing government, they cannot understand that (a) government can be childishly overbearing with non-Justice agendas, and (b) we need people with the guts and knowledge to right such wrongs.
That is what I am about as a constitutional defense attorney, and that is what I would be about as a judge.
So, the community can fall for the constitutionally obscene position taken by Judge Cox's self-serving confederates that whoever exercises the community's judicial power [and the power does belong to the community, not to elitist judges!] is none of the electorate's business. Or the community can realize and embrace the notion of popular sovereignty, and its periodic direct exercise called "election," and take the measure of the man or woman asking for the opportunity to serve the public's interests, and then choose to award that service, temporarily, to the person they desire. We fought a Revolution partly to make sure we could select our leaders at the ballot box, rather than being stuck with leaders who occupy their positions merely because..., well, they, and their families always have.
Properly functioning police would support me just as surely as would anyone else who believes in a rule of law and in the Constitution.
Don't forget to vote on June 5, and vote for Kennedy for Riverside County Superior Court Judge, Seat No. 2. And I need your help, so please get involved. www.kennedyforjudge.com
Most police officers are lovers of the Constitution too. They are sworn to uphold it as aggressively and sincerely as I am, and their friends and families have the same interest as anyone else in a neutral, unbiased, competent, courageous judiciary. To be sure, part of my professional function in the courts has been to counter the efforts of police when their conduct violates people's liberties. That was also part of the professional function of fellow constitutional defense attorney John Adams, the founder of the American conservative movement. That does not translate to a hostility between the properly functioning constitutional defense attorney and the police. Their job is to move fast and apprehend wrongdoers and to interdict wrongdoing; the role of the defense attorney is to make certain the fast movement comports with constitutional norms and is supported by sufficient proofs properly collected; and the role of the judge is to listen to the defense attorney's presentation about the lawfulness and sufficiency of that fast movement and to apply the law with neutrality, propriety, insight, scholarship, and courage.
That is, in a simplistic model for discussion purposes, the police enforces the statutory law; the defense attorney invokes constitutional law; the judge applies it all to serve the overarching meaning and substance of a rule of law. Police know that without being slowed by the counterpoise of the defense attorney, we would have tyranny; the defense attorney knows that without the appropriate movement of the police in the community, we would have anarchy; and the judge knows that without properly regulating both ends of that dynamic, we would not have a rule of law but would instead have governmental lawlessness. And no one is to be benefited by the latter, because the marvelous experiment in Philadelphia in 1787 could come loose at the seams if there were not the proper accommodation between power and license decreed by the Framers.
Police in many areas of my career have come to me for quiet, and sometimes less than quiet, assistance, because they know the risks to themselves and to their loved ones when the law that is intended to be enforced in their favor is not. And they know that I will courageously and knowledgeably and discretely do so, and I have.
In one community, where I had developed certain, and unsurpassed, notoriety for my ability to enlist the assistance of the Constitution to benefit clients against overweening government, the issues of what we are all about came into stark relief. Two police agencies were having spoiled brat feuds against each other.
The police of one arrested a member of the other for DUI. Then the police of the other arrested a member of the first for DUI. The officers victimized in both agencies by both agencies hired me. I did my magic for both, employing my constitutional gifts to assist both, and I got both cases dismissed, and then I sat them both down and inquired if they now understood why I do what I do and what it is all about.
They did.
Until people get victimized by overbearing government, they cannot understand that (a) government can be childishly overbearing with non-Justice agendas, and (b) we need people with the guts and knowledge to right such wrongs.
That is what I am about as a constitutional defense attorney, and that is what I would be about as a judge.
So, the community can fall for the constitutionally obscene position taken by Judge Cox's self-serving confederates that whoever exercises the community's judicial power [and the power does belong to the community, not to elitist judges!] is none of the electorate's business. Or the community can realize and embrace the notion of popular sovereignty, and its periodic direct exercise called "election," and take the measure of the man or woman asking for the opportunity to serve the public's interests, and then choose to award that service, temporarily, to the person they desire. We fought a Revolution partly to make sure we could select our leaders at the ballot box, rather than being stuck with leaders who occupy their positions merely because..., well, they, and their families always have.
Properly functioning police would support me just as surely as would anyone else who believes in a rule of law and in the Constitution.
Don't forget to vote on June 5, and vote for Kennedy for Riverside County Superior Court Judge, Seat No. 2. And I need your help, so please get involved. www.kennedyforjudge.com
When speaking of the police, are you thinking of the unions or the individuals deputy's and officers?. It's a huge difference.
ReplyDeleteIndividual red blooded American policemen and their spouses and loved ones. Of course, if there is not congruency between a person and the union that purports to serve him/her, then it is not serving him/her!
Delete