- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Federal Judge to Allyson Schwartz, Curt Weldon and Mike Fitzpatrick: Thanks for Screwing Working Americans!
I am in law school, where most of our reading is of legal opinions by judges. There is this idea in the law that appellate judges strictly interpret questions of law; that the law is sort of above everything, and high-ranking judges do not wade into determining what is "right" in a normative sense, only what is "right" in a legal sense. This can sometimes lead to absurd results.
For example, in Walker v. City of Birmingham, the Supreme Court famously upheld a jail sentence for Martin Luther King and a few others. The crime? Refusing to adhere to an injunction issued on behalf of famed bigot Bull Connor, saying that King and his cohorts could not march in Birmingham. In the opinion, the Justice does not mention Martin Luther King, does not mention the context of segregation, and says there was "violence" at a previous march, while failing to mention that the violence was caused by pissed-off whites, not King supporters. That is a long way of saying that in the Federal Judiciary, adherence to the law, whatever it is, is king, and you see judges constantly avoiding seemingly relevant context.
How does this have anything to do with the inflammatory title of the post? Read more below.
FREDERICKSBURG — Alfonso Sosa, a house painter here who made about $20,000 last year, filed for bankruptcy the morning of Dec. 6, hoping to avoid the foreclosure on his family's mobile home scheduled for later that day. Judge Frank Monroe of Austin rejected the case 16 days later — with a bang.
In his ruling, Monroe said the new federal bankruptcy law is full of traps for consumers, calling some of its provisions "inane," "absurd" and incomprehensible to "any rational human being."
He stopped just short of accusing Congress of being bought and paid for, dryly noting, "Apparently, it is not the individual consumers of this country that make the donations to the members of Congress that allow them to be elected and re-elected and re-elected and re-elected."
This law is so bad, so unjust, and so plain old stupid, that you have all sorts of practitioners and judges screaming about it. It is clear that it is simply a shafting of everyday Americans. In the end, in the case, the Judge said his hands were totally tied by the statute, and he had to rule against one of the consumers. And his final paragraph of the opinion should make Allyson Schwartz, Curt Weldon, Mike Fitzpatrick and the rest of the MBNA groupies take notice, because even Federal Judges have noted that they have been bought by the financial services industry:
The Court's hands are tied...
An order of even date will be entered herewith. Congress must surely be pleased.
Fitzpatrick and Weldon are soon going to be voted out, in favor of Democrats who I hope will not be so easily bought and sold. Allyson Schwartz, I hope, at least may not be able to get as many $2,000 checks from the Mt. Airy-type crowd who wants to believe that she is something she is not.