WV Supreme Court - Joe's Buds and Mutts' Henchmen
To say the very least, I am pretty upset. And every American who values their rights should be too. But they are not, because most of them do not know what is going on in this backwoods state. Having lived here most of my life and watching the progression or perhaps I should say dissolution, of the legal system, maybe I should not be surprised.
But I am. I am surprised at the power grab that I see within the WV State Supreme Court.
There is no longer any question that the state Supreme Court is making law in West Virginia. And they are making it from the bench, not by the time honored and accepted method of advising lawmakers (read that the Legislature) and the Governor, that certain laws might well be altered.
I admit that it really ground my grits that the WV State Supreme Court so misread the application of the law concerning when giving turn signals is required. In point of fact, the court turned its collective back upon the circumstances of the case and gave a motorist a free pass on a DUI because of the method used by the arresting officer. The officer noted that in the early morning the motorist did not give a turn signal when turning off the road. There were no other motorists around except the policeman. When the policeman noted a strong odor of alcohol, he proceeded to make a DUI arrest also and gave the man a citation for failure to signal a turn.
The court passed over the DUI and concentrated on the failure to give a signal citation. And, admittedly, there is a provision in the law that says that if no other motorist is affected, a signal is not required. BUT, and a big one to me, a policeman WAS there, and observed no signal being given. Does the office not count as another motorist?
So the court ruled, and at the time I thought it was simply an error in judgment on their part, that the DUI infraction was tossed out as was the failure to give signal.
Now, friends, I have driven an automobile or truck for over fifty years. I have never been cited for failure to give a signal, simply because, back in the Dark Ages, you actually had to memorize that section of the Drivers Manual supplied by the State Police to0 all beginning drivers. If you couldn't cite it word for word, you failed to get your Learners Permit. If I can remember it, here it is--
"The driver of a vehicle within and intersection intending to make a turn to the left, shall yield the right of way to every other vehicle within the intersection or so close thereto to constitute an immediate hazard, but said driver, having so yielded and having GIVEN A SIGNAL WHEN AND AS REQUIRED, shall proceed to make such left turn, and the drivers of all other vehicles shall yield the right of way to him."
Given a signal when and as required.
We were told that a signal was required every time we wanted to change lanes, turn right or left, or slow down significantly. We also were required to know proper hand signals.
When did this change? I did not take time to review all the changes that had been made in traffic laws since 1958. I got my license in 1959 and I know damned well that had a patrolman given me a citation for failure to give a signal back then, even if there were no other vehicles around, the WV Supreme Court would NOT have voided the ticket for such foolishness as they have displayed.
Yet, I got pooh-poohed for even thinking there was something afoot when I raised teh question of propriety.
A day or two ago, they did it again, only this time it really means something bad to everyone, and that is not pooh-pooh, it is plain old shit. No second guessing this one. It is an outright power grab, and a complete misuse of power by the court. The court decided to acquit a person who had been arrested, tried before a jury of her peers and found guilty, all by laws then in effect and sentenced properly under those laws. And the reason for acquitting her? The case law has always been wrong.
Never mind that we have actually executed people in this state under that same case law. Never mind the fact that case law has been the rule for generations.
Now let's look at this objectively. If the WV Supreme Court can, all on its own, make it stick that it can make prior laws unenforceable, then it stands to reason that our long standing protection from being charged and convicted for violations of newly enacted legislation for acts committed years before enactment is now gone. Who says? The WV Supreme Court, that is who says, and, by extension, Joe Manchin.
Hell, with such a precedent, the WV Supreme Court can declare the state constitution is unconstitutional. It is the most egregious power grab I have witnessed in my long and rather uneventful life. Just where do these assholes get off anyway?
There is not one single law in effect in West Virginia today that cannot be changed by this group if they are allowed to continue. And they will be allowed to do so.
This is exactly what Joe and Mutt have been hoping for. Now we have some 1.9 million citizens living in a state that has no law except what the government wants to say and enforce as the law, and, even then, they can change it from day to day, minute by minute. Jesus H. Christ, I can hardly believe it. Joe was reelected and the American people as a whole elected Mutt and now they can see where that is leading. Right down to perdition is where. No one is safe anymore, anywhere.
And here is Mutt kissing the ass of every enemy of the US, declaring the US to not be a Christian nation. Appeasement to every enemy. He simply can't seem to keep his lips off their big asses. His Secretary of State couldn't find her ass with two hands and a flashlight, and yet she is preparing to negotiate the release of two of Al Gore's reporters from North Korea (and no one has ever shown that they are not guilty even.) Why would we even consider negotiating for them if they are guilty?
Sorry. I got off topic.
Americans as a whole are a pretty good lot of people. They are basically honest, God-fearing people who desire to obey the laws. But now, no one can know what the law is. And that fits Joe's and Mutt's agendas perfectly. THEY are able to define what is law and don't you forget it, Bub! For what you may think is the law is not any more, unless those two say it is. And poor old Joe. He got sucked right in again, does he really thinkMutt is going to let him have a piece of that bone? He'll be shucked out as quick as an ear of corn by three hungry mules.
But it appears that the West Virginians, and all Americans by extension, have just been sheared but good. Man, I sure hope they have a mess of vaseline, because we are sure as hell gonna need it.
But I am. I am surprised at the power grab that I see within the WV State Supreme Court.
There is no longer any question that the state Supreme Court is making law in West Virginia. And they are making it from the bench, not by the time honored and accepted method of advising lawmakers (read that the Legislature) and the Governor, that certain laws might well be altered.
I admit that it really ground my grits that the WV State Supreme Court so misread the application of the law concerning when giving turn signals is required. In point of fact, the court turned its collective back upon the circumstances of the case and gave a motorist a free pass on a DUI because of the method used by the arresting officer. The officer noted that in the early morning the motorist did not give a turn signal when turning off the road. There were no other motorists around except the policeman. When the policeman noted a strong odor of alcohol, he proceeded to make a DUI arrest also and gave the man a citation for failure to signal a turn.
The court passed over the DUI and concentrated on the failure to give a signal citation. And, admittedly, there is a provision in the law that says that if no other motorist is affected, a signal is not required. BUT, and a big one to me, a policeman WAS there, and observed no signal being given. Does the office not count as another motorist?
So the court ruled, and at the time I thought it was simply an error in judgment on their part, that the DUI infraction was tossed out as was the failure to give signal.
Now, friends, I have driven an automobile or truck for over fifty years. I have never been cited for failure to give a signal, simply because, back in the Dark Ages, you actually had to memorize that section of the Drivers Manual supplied by the State Police to0 all beginning drivers. If you couldn't cite it word for word, you failed to get your Learners Permit. If I can remember it, here it is--
"The driver of a vehicle within and intersection intending to make a turn to the left, shall yield the right of way to every other vehicle within the intersection or so close thereto to constitute an immediate hazard, but said driver, having so yielded and having GIVEN A SIGNAL WHEN AND AS REQUIRED, shall proceed to make such left turn, and the drivers of all other vehicles shall yield the right of way to him."
Given a signal when and as required.
We were told that a signal was required every time we wanted to change lanes, turn right or left, or slow down significantly. We also were required to know proper hand signals.
When did this change? I did not take time to review all the changes that had been made in traffic laws since 1958. I got my license in 1959 and I know damned well that had a patrolman given me a citation for failure to give a signal back then, even if there were no other vehicles around, the WV Supreme Court would NOT have voided the ticket for such foolishness as they have displayed.
Yet, I got pooh-poohed for even thinking there was something afoot when I raised teh question of propriety.
A day or two ago, they did it again, only this time it really means something bad to everyone, and that is not pooh-pooh, it is plain old shit. No second guessing this one. It is an outright power grab, and a complete misuse of power by the court. The court decided to acquit a person who had been arrested, tried before a jury of her peers and found guilty, all by laws then in effect and sentenced properly under those laws. And the reason for acquitting her? The case law has always been wrong.
Never mind that we have actually executed people in this state under that same case law. Never mind the fact that case law has been the rule for generations.
Now let's look at this objectively. If the WV Supreme Court can, all on its own, make it stick that it can make prior laws unenforceable, then it stands to reason that our long standing protection from being charged and convicted for violations of newly enacted legislation for acts committed years before enactment is now gone. Who says? The WV Supreme Court, that is who says, and, by extension, Joe Manchin.
Hell, with such a precedent, the WV Supreme Court can declare the state constitution is unconstitutional. It is the most egregious power grab I have witnessed in my long and rather uneventful life. Just where do these assholes get off anyway?
There is not one single law in effect in West Virginia today that cannot be changed by this group if they are allowed to continue. And they will be allowed to do so.
This is exactly what Joe and Mutt have been hoping for. Now we have some 1.9 million citizens living in a state that has no law except what the government wants to say and enforce as the law, and, even then, they can change it from day to day, minute by minute. Jesus H. Christ, I can hardly believe it. Joe was reelected and the American people as a whole elected Mutt and now they can see where that is leading. Right down to perdition is where. No one is safe anymore, anywhere.
And here is Mutt kissing the ass of every enemy of the US, declaring the US to not be a Christian nation. Appeasement to every enemy. He simply can't seem to keep his lips off their big asses. His Secretary of State couldn't find her ass with two hands and a flashlight, and yet she is preparing to negotiate the release of two of Al Gore's reporters from North Korea (and no one has ever shown that they are not guilty even.) Why would we even consider negotiating for them if they are guilty?
Sorry. I got off topic.
Americans as a whole are a pretty good lot of people. They are basically honest, God-fearing people who desire to obey the laws. But now, no one can know what the law is. And that fits Joe's and Mutt's agendas perfectly. THEY are able to define what is law and don't you forget it, Bub! For what you may think is the law is not any more, unless those two say it is. And poor old Joe. He got sucked right in again, does he really thinkMutt is going to let him have a piece of that bone? He'll be shucked out as quick as an ear of corn by three hungry mules.
But it appears that the West Virginians, and all Americans by extension, have just been sheared but good. Man, I sure hope they have a mess of vaseline, because we are sure as hell gonna need it.
posted by tanstaafl | 9:58 PM
4 Comments:
Hi there! Glad I stopped by here, because I needed something to get my mind on.
The most recent decision...well, like I said, I feel kind of two ways about it. What I think SHOULD have happened was a review of how the law (legal system) currently seems to place more responsibility on battered women than on abusers. HOWEVER, like I said, no matter what the circumstances, murder is murder, manslaughter is manslaughter, and it deserves some kind of punishment (lest we set up a system in which it is sometimes excusable to kill someone, entirely--as in our state, when it's perfectly okay to kill an intruder regardless of them having a weapon or not, something I in part agree with, but in part find disturbing).
I feel, rightly or wrongly, that a person should be punished based on the laws in place when the crime was committed. Otherwise, all of the people who WERE punished under those laws have been unfairly treated, by admission of the courts themselves, and are deserving of reviews (and the state obligated to pay restitution to them or their survivors). If those laws are found to be bad, then in my opinion it is the job of the legislature to review the reasoning and go through the process of changing the laws. That is what we elect representatives for. Unfortunately, courts have taken that...privilege (because that's what it is, when there is really no process) upon themselves, rather than taking on the responsibility to give the citizens an opportunity to shape society, as it was intended to be. (After all, we the people are, in theory, our government. Right?)
On the issue of turn signals...following that decision, if indeed the courts were correct, then it would seem to me that the citizens of WV would have every right to organize and take action against the state for using their tax dollars to print manuals that are, apparently (according to the Supreme Court) false and misleading. It is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars, if indeed the courts are correct--which, no one has the right to question.
I'm going to have to go get ready, but I'll come back to this tonight or tomorrow. (I think you have the potential for a really funny comic strip, with Joe and Mutt, by the way, lol)
I'm not even sure the state still prints a drivers manual anymore. The system used to be that you studied the manual and then went to the nearest State Police post on a specific day, and were questioned on the manual by a State Policeman. If he felt you were sufficiently knowledgeable on the manual, then he would give you a slip that you sent to Charleston with the fee and your Learners Permit was t=returned to you, good for 60 days. During that time you could take the driving test, again with a State Policeman sitting next to you, directing you on what he wanted you to demonstrate. Pass that and you got your Drivers License. You were allowed to take the driving test only three times on any given Learners Permit. If you failed all three times, then you had to go through the oral exam again.
But we also got a lot of safer drivers that way.
Now, all you really need is sign recognition and get the learners, drive from your parking spot to the parallel parking spot, parallel park and drive back to your parking spot and you get your drivers license. Woo-hoo. Big deal. I have watched them where I used to work and could tell you who would pass the drivers test without ever seeing them drive. Just look at the person and you could tell. If she was young and pretty she always passed. A little older and well dressed, male or female, pass. A male 16 to 30, ragged looking or baggy pants, fail.
But the one that really got my goat the worst was when my father-in-law needed to have his drivers license renewed about three years before he died. He was unable to walk down the stairs to the room where the photos were taken (the SP office out on Rt. 60, next to Prestera), and two State Policemen actually picked him up in their arms, carried him downstairs, sat him down in the chair, picked him back up, carried him back to his car and helped him into it. The old man couldn't even lift his foot to put it on the brake he was so feeble. Yet these two guys, charged with enforcing safe driving, did this. I was so flabbergasted that all I could do was stand there and watch. I had driven there to help him negotiate the stairs, myself, and had told him and his wife that unless he could do so, I was not going to help him get the license by driving to Winfield to do so. They got there about a minute before I did and that is what occurred.
Oh well. That's life in the big city I guess.
Life in the big city, lol. Some of them like to wish :)
Anyway, I meant to get back to this (sorry for the delay) because you made a really good point about not being able to know what the law is. And I think that's where judges "legislating from the bench" pose a serious, serious problem (and threat, in some cases).
So, currently, the law (turn signals, for example) is that we don't have to use them if there isn't another car around, right? Well, what about pedestrians? Some pedestrians also rely on cars using turn signals. Don't pedestrians matter anymore? Beyond that, this guy gets out of a DUI, right? But what if, a few months down the road, the decision is overturned...but the next guy that doesn't use his turn signal while he's intoxicated still (understandably) thinks the law says we don't have to, so HE tries to get out of HIS obviously illegal action on a technicality (that apparently isn't technical, but is instead arbitrary). But he's refused a dismissal. Then do we go back and get the guy who should have already been dealt with? Or is he "scott free"?
Laws aren't supposed to be fluid. They are either "the law" or they are not. I mean, it's one thing when society changes the meanings of words (gay, for example)...but changing the meaning of laws on whims is just setting up a big huge mess and all but begging for a lawless society.
And I get that. I saw the comments you got about turn signals, and I can understand why people who are not capable of seeing the bigger picture might think you're just harping and obsessed (lol)...but we went from turn signals to manslaughter pretty damn quick, didn't we? And noooobudeee got it. I've determined that children must not play connect the dots much anymore. Either that, or it's a skill they lose somewhere along the way in the newer/better/progressive public schools?
(Somewhere in the past few days, I lost the actual point I wanted to make--but it'll eventually come back to me)
Most drivers only know one hand signal these days...and it is more of a finger signal...
Post a Comment
<< Home