November Ending Ethics, 11/30/21: Unethical Appeal, Buried Corruption, The Usual Hypocrisy, A Supreme Court Threat, And That’s Not All…

Bye November

I’m currently weighing whether to try to get up the Ethics Alarms Best and Worst of 2021 this year, after several years in a row of failing to find the time and energy…I am also re-watching “Clickbait” in preparation for the special Ethics Alarms Zoom discussion that, I hope, will soon be scheduled for some tome in the next 31 days. As regular readers here know, my ambitions sometimes exceed my grasp.

Heh. Sometimes...!

1. Oh look, a frivolous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, because #MeToo, or something…The prosecutors who unethically used improperly obtained evidence to put Bill Cosby prison are now asking the United States Supreme Court to throw out the appellate court ruling earlier this year that overturned his 2018 conviction for sexual assault on due process grounds. Cosby was released in June after serving less than three years of a three-to-10-year sentence. He should not have served any time at all. A ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Cosby’s rights had been violated when the Montgomery County District Attorney’s office pursued a criminal case against him despite a binding “non-prosecution agreement” given to him by a previous district attorney. Cosby’s rights were violated, raping scum that he is.

Notice how feminists, civil rights activists on the left, anti-Trump fanatics and others who have a monopoly on Truth and Right (or think they do) increasingly want the law to yield to “justice”? There is no valid basis for this appeal. Zip, none. The lawyers filing it should be sanctioned for unethical conduct, just as Trump lawyers who filed suits to flip-flop the 2020 election without evidence have been sanctioned.

2. Speaking of the 2020 election, the shady dealings of Joe Biden’s son, quite possibly with Joe’s knowledge and even facilitation, were, we now know, kept from the public just long enough to ensure Donald Trump’s defeat. Today, Senator Chuck Grassley took to the Senate floor to expose more smoking gun documentation. Here’s the video:

Of course, none of the news networks, except maybe Fox, will run it, and I assume the major print sources sill ignore it. The situation is not helped by the fact that Grassley is 88 and has no business being in the Senate. He’s pretty sharp for 88, which is like saying Jane Fonda is pretty hot for 83. I don’t want to see her do a sequel to “Barbarella”, and I don’t want to have to watch Grassley stumble through an important presentation.

3. Great moments in hypocrisy: We don’t need the Ethics Alarms label IIPTDXTTNMIAFB [“Imagine if President Trump did X that the news media is accepting from Biden.”]for this one, because we already know. President Biden imposed a travel ban on a group of African countries to try to stem the spread of the latest strain of the Wuhan virus, the Omicron variant. When the pandemic began spreading in the early months of 2020, Trump blocked travel from China and six other countries, including Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. Biden called Trump’s actions “xenophobic,” tweeting,

“We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science – not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.”

As usual, the mainstream news media followed their party’s lead both then and now. Trump’s travel ban, the media concluded, was racist. Biden’s travel bans, now, are different. The New York Times ran a piece in 2020 titled, “The Racism at the Heart of Trump’s ‘Travel Ban.” This week, the newspaper covered Biden’s ban with, “United States will bar travelers from 8 countries.” And, of course, here’s CNN:

CNN two faced

Nice.

All we ask is for consistent, fair standards. Is that too much to expect from journalists?

4. Unethical quote, AND irresponsible, AND idiotic. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said during a virtual press conference with the rest of the New Hampshire congressional delegation,

“I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because… I think if you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is of the public, particularly young people.”

  • The Supreme Court is charged with deciding what is Constitutional, and that is not a question up for polling. Amazing that a U.S. Senator advocates courts making their determinations based on fear and popular opinion, “particularly young people’s.”
  • What disgraceful demagoguery! This is a direct appeal to the uneducated, the ignorant, and the violent.
  • So the Democrats are threatening violence now if they don’t get their way? Yes, that’s the usual next step for totalitarians, so it should be a surprise.
  • If there are riots after the SCOTUS decision, will that mean that Shaheen will be investigated for inciting it? What she said is far closer to incitement than anything Trump said on January 6.
  • It’s kind of unfair, when you think about it: unborn children can’t protest, much less revolt.

5. Right into the “Facts Don’t Matter” files... Members of leftist groups at Arizona State, where Kyle Rittenhouse is a student via computer, are agitating to have him kicked out of school.  Students for Socialism ASU, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition and Mecha de ASU are telling university officials to ban Rittenhouse from classes and campus because he makes them feel “unsafe.”

“Our campus is already unsafe as is and we would like to abate this danger as much as possible,” a spokesperson said.  “The goal of these demands is to let the ASU administration know that we do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter, who has expressed violent intentions about protecting property over people, is so carelessly allowed to be admitted to the school at all.”

  • Rittenhouse is not a “mass shooter.”
  • Expressing “intentions” is protected by the Bill of Rights unless it amounts to a “true threat” to a particular person.
  • The law gives all Americans a right to protect their property from those illegally attempting to take or destroy it. The “property over people” canard is why shoplifters are running amuck in California.

Knowing the spine deficit among college administrators, I rate the chance of Rittenhouse being allowed to stay at AU as slightly better than 50-50. [Pointer: JutGory]

10 thoughts on “November Ending Ethics, 11/30/21: Unethical Appeal, Buried Corruption, The Usual Hypocrisy, A Supreme Court Threat, And That’s Not All…

  1. 1. There is a reason that the criminal justice system in this country is set up so that ties and benefits of the doubt generally go to the defendant, not the state. Actually there are several, starting with the fact that the British Empire abused the criminal justice system to jail, exile or execute people who dared to speak their mind or disagree with the powers that be. There is no legal basis for making this appeal, and the prosecutors allegations that this could have some kind of bad effect nationwide are smoke and mirrors. However, as you pointed out, the folks supporting this increasingly think they have a lock on everything good. Five guys step farther, and say again that the left is looking for a monopoly on everything, including the criminal justice system. A system where prosecutors can make promises of immunity or of no adverse action, only to renege on them later in the interests of “justice” is there better than the southern good old boy network where Billy Bob could Lynch poor Willie for looking the wrong way at Sarah Mae with impunity, because he knew the jury would be Goober, Gomer, and Bo, who would let him off, or even the culture up here, where my grandfather could assault a black worker who screwed up on his first day, and the local police, who were all Irish, Italian, and Portuguese, would dismiss him, saying he should thank my grandfather for the lesson. I don’t applaud Bill Cosby at all. The man was a drugging, raping son of a b****, but, even the biggest son of a b**** of all is entitled to due process.

    2. Don’t you love it when one party gets away with swindling the American people on an election and then there’s nothing we can do to fix it? That said, I think way too many americans, including way too many independence, we’re quite happy to let themselves be swindled to be rid of Donald Trump. As for Chuck Grassley’s age, until the president is pushed out for being too old and cognitively weak, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders are sent packing like the senile has been they are, and a mandatory retirement age is imposed on the Supreme Court to prevent senile, cancer-ravaged old hags like Ruth Bader Ginsburg from trying to outlast the president like bitter neighbors each determined to outlive the other just because they hate him that much, I’m not really interested in criticism of any Republican’s age.

    3. I assume that question is rhetorical. We’ve spent who knows how many pixels here pointing out that the mainstream media aren’t even really journalists anymore. They are either activists or paid shills for the left. Their job as they see it is attack everything that the one party does while excusing and enabling everything that the other party does. The one comfort is that Chris Cuomo won’t be doing it anymore, partly because he was too blatant, but just as much because he no longer has a direct pipeline to the governor of New York.

    4. I think this belongs in the “hey, it just might work,” file. There is still a very real question of how or whether Chief Justice Roberts was leaned on in the Obamacare case to make sure it somehow stayed constitutional. It’s also a fact that there is almost always away to finesse anything to make it constitutional, especially in a case like this where you are dealing with a 50-year-old decision and it’s too easy to say stare decisis. We’ve also established how important Roe v. Wade is to the Democratic party, but, just to recapitulate, it is the most important thing in the entire universe to that party. The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, the right to do process, the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of the press, even the right to worship freely, all pale before the right of a woman to destroy a gestating human life within her, and so carry on like a cheap Las Vegas whore on a busy weekend (also important to young men so that they can fuck and truck). It should come as no surprise after the relative success of last year’s anti-police riots and the successful establishment of BLM and antifa as militia for the left that the left is threatening more of the same if they don’t get their way on this. To answer your question, no, of course no one will be charged with incitement, only Republicans get charged with incitement. In fact, you will probably hear rhetoric to the effect that any responsibility for any riots and consequent injury damage or death is on the justices for making the wrong decision, sort of like how a badly beaten wife is responsible for being beaten because she just wouldn’t listen.

    5. This is where the future leaders of this nation are coming from. I can see one of them one day introducing the “People over Property” bill, which will criminalize the use of force for protecting one’s property and enshrine a duty to retreat. If you’re lucky and you have surveillance cameras, maybe the police can take a report and tell you they’ll get back to you if they can recover your property. They will never recover your property.

    Boy, isn’t this country headed in a great direction? I saw a video last night that talked about how Biden is probably not going to go any lower than the 36% approval he is now because at this point he is reaching his rock solid base. I don’t know what there is to approve. Actually, I do. It’s kind of half scary, half pathetic to realize that over one third of this nation will strongly approve of a politician no matter what, based solely on whether there is a D or an R next to his name.

    • “, sort of like how a badly beaten wife is responsible for being beaten because she just wouldn’t listen.”

      And I maintain still that the Democrats are the abusive boyfriend/husband that mistreats you for your own good and wouldn’t harm you if you would just be quiet and not do things to upset him. The media are the relatives who make excuses for him and try to convince you to get back together with him.

      • “The media are the relatives who make excuses for him and try to convince you to get back together with him.”

        And the cops and medics who tell you things like “it takes two to make an argument” and “you must have done something to provoke him,” not to mention the prosecutors and judges who won’t do a damn thing against this “pillar of the community.”

  2. RE Point 5: It is worse than you think. Rittenhouse is only an ASU student as an Online student. I suppose these others feel he will attack them on social media.

    Imagine if we decided that anyone who had a run in with the law was forever banned from attending a school or shop in store because the individual made the group feel unsafe. Which demographic group would be most harmed by that rule? Seems to me that the entire construct of the Black complaint of living in a predominantly White culture is that Whites unfairly see them as dangerous threats.

  3. Notice how feminists, civil rights activists on the left, anti-Trump fanatics and others who have a monopoly on Truth and Right (or think they do) increasingly want the law to yield to “justice”? There is no valid basis for this appeal. Zip, none. The lawyers filing it should be sanctioned for unethical conduct, just as Trump lawyers who filed suits to flip-flop the 2020 election without evidence have been sanctioned.

    Courts are not supposed to decide what people in an ultimate sense, to quote the film Joker, “fucking deserve”.

    They are to render judgments based on law and evidence; that is what separates them from a lynch mob.

    Back in 2004, Thomas Sowell opined, “Prosecutors in the Scott Peterson murder trial look like they could end up creating a worst case scenario, with jurors (and the public) believing that Scott Peterson is guilty — but not beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Without his mistress’s testimony, Scott Peterson would have been entitled to an acquittal, despite “fucking deserv[ing]” an execution!

  4. Kyle Rittenhouse is a student via computer . . . .

    1] the administration treats the student call for KR’s dismissal as a (bad) joke and ignores it.

    2] the administration does not dismiss KR; instead requires those who object be required to read all relevant trial testimony and answer a 100 question test T/F on it.

    3. objectors must agree to have their names and ID pictures published in all media using KR’s name.
    .
    3] the administration dismisses him. He sues, wins enough to cover, minimally and after taxes, all relevant legal fees, and four years’ tuition, room and fees elsewhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.