07 January 2007
WHY THE WORLD HATES
The American courts which expects a certain measure of comity, in regards to American law, they base on it grand sense of "logic", that (1) directly affects the jurisprudence of all countries on major issues of the day, which that judge and American Jurisprudence most often has decided with the most senseless, brainless, naive, stupid, pretentious, improper of means:
That the world most often can clearly see as the travesty it is when America's system of justice, and leaders are judged by what they decide on the most basic levels, where most often there is no money available to represent the poor, the under-privileged, and the lower economic classes of a society at war with a world, that begins by claiming it is always better, gentler, kinder, most just, most fair, and of course best country in the world:
When from those decisions insight is derived into how the American "leadership (sic) Democrat, and Republican, will decide the larger greater issues of war, peace, progress, heaven, hell, language, truth, and justice.
Typical people before the courts in the
- infringe on the dignity of the court
- act in contempt of court
Typical courts are supposed to have the appearances of propriety that allows decisions of those courts to stand as dignified impartial bodies, which can be depended upon as being fair, just, and good, based on some
measure of truth and fairness.
What Justice Roberts starts with what I describe as insincere "crocodile tears" in his saying:
"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later all for eating a single French fry in a Metrorail station.
The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the or-deal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ''foolish,'' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that hey did not, and accordingly we affirm."