Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Gilbert Brown Rules Serial Rapist, the “Pillowcase Rapist” Christopher Evans Hubbart, Be Released from Prison
WHAT IS THIS JUDGE THINKING!!! Do the rights of the law-abiding public ever supersede the rights of a serial rapist violent sexual predator? Honestly, who releases into the public a serial rapist?
Santa Clara County, California Superior Court Judge Gilbert Brown has done the unthinkable, he has ruled that Christopher Evans Hubbart, a serial rapist, be released from prison. 67 year old Christopher Evans Hubbart was dubbed the “Pillowcase Rapist” who sexually assaulted at least 40 women in the 1970′s and 1980′s; however, authorities believe the number of victims is closer to 100. He got his nickname by using a pillowcase to muffle the screams of some victims. This serial, sexual predator admitted to raping and assaulting about 40 women between 1971 and 1982 and was sentenced to 16 years in prison. He was paroled in 1990 only to be arrested two months later for a new sexual assault. Hubbart was returned to prison until 1996. Judge Gilbert Brown said Hubbart will resided at a home in the 2000 block of East Avenue R. WTF. This issue is that these sexual predators have to go some where when they get out. Hmm … how about Hell!!!
It is bad enough what this judge did, but how in the hell did any doctor deem this predator fixed and safe to be released into society? What part about a serial sex offender do they not get? These habitual, serial raping scumbags cannot be fixed.
The so-called “Pillowcase Rapist” who attacked at least 40 women in the 1970s and 1980s will be freed and allowed to live in a remote Southern California desert area despite a host of vocal protests, a judge ordered Friday.
Christopher Evans Hubbart, 63, must be released from a state facility by July 7, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Gilbert Brown ruled.
Hubbart will be permitted to rent a small house near Palmdale, some 45 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles.
“Now we are preparing for his arrival,” said District Attorney Jackie Lacey, who spent months fighting Hubbart’s release. “We will do everything within our authority to protect the residents of Los Angeles County from this dangerous predator.”
State Assemblyman Steve Fox:
Fox has proposed legislation which would require communities to be notified in advance of the release of sexually violent predators if they are being released to counties other than the one where they were sentenced, KTLA reports. The legislation, Assembly Bill 1607, passed the State Assembly on Friday.
UPDATE I: Christopher Evans Hubbart to be located in a remote part of Palmdale, about 60 miles north of Los Angeles, CA.
“I know he’s going to escalate and he’s not going to leave any witnesses behind,” Holbrook said. “He is going to prey on us like a cat, like a slimy rattlesnake.”
Hubbart must wear a GPS ankle monitor and will be transported to individual therapy sessions twice per week. He will be accompanied by a Liberty supervisor when he goes out in public for the first six months to a year, according to terms of his release.
The house (pictured, right) is located in a remote part of Palmdale, about 60 miles north of Los Angeles. He was ordered to Los Angeles County because of a state law that states a judge can send a sexually violent predator back to his “alleged county of domicile.”
“There’s no streetlights out here, the cell service doesn’t hardly work out here. What is this judge thinking?” Holbrook said.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Christopher Evans HUBBART, Defendant and Appellant.
WHEN THIS PREDATOR RAPES AND HE WILL RAPE AGAIN … THIS JUDGE AND MENTAL HEALTH DOCTORS SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES.
Marion Superior County Judge Kurt Eisgruber Orders No Prison Time for Indiana Man David Wise Convicted of Drugging & Raping his Wife Mandy Boardman
Talk about a travesty of Justice, since when have we become lenient on rapists … What is is this Shariah Law?
Get ready to be outraged … On May 10, 2011, Mandy Boardman told the detectives at the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department the bizarre story that her husband, David Wise, had been drugging her for at least three years and raping her in her sleep. She had also found video on his cell phone. Last month a jury convicted Wise of six felony charges related to sexually assaulting his wife. On Friday, May 16, 2014, Marion Superior Court judge Kurt Eisgruber sentenced Wise to 20 years. Seems OK so far, right? Well it ends here.
The judges sentence did not include one day in prison. In regards to the 20 year sentence, 12 years were suspended and 8 years were to be spent in home confinement. WHAT THE HELL WAS THIS JUDGE THINKING!!! Since when are we lenient on rapists?
But perhaps the strangest thing is what happened after a jury convicted Wise last month of six felony charges related to sexually assaulting his wife.
On Friday, a Marion Superior Court judge sentenced Wise, 52, to 20 years — but not a day in prison. Of the sentence, 12 years were suspended and 8 years were to be spent in home confinement.
Prosecutors had asked for 40 years in prison.
And Boardman — who divorced Wise after discovering what he’d been doing — is furious.
“To have my rapist, my attacker, convicted on all six counts, only to be let go – only for him to walk out that door the same time I could — was just unfathomable,” Boardman told the Los Angeles Times in a phone interview on Monday. “I never thought that he would be at home, being able to have the same rights and privileges as I do.”
It gets worse, if possible. From Mediaite, check out the rapists defense as to why he was drugging and sexually assaulting his wife.
His wife was “snippy” and drugging her “made her nicer” is how an Indianapolis man convicted of repeatedly drugging and raping his wife explained his actions in court. The offenses, carried out over the course of three years, netted Indiana resident David Wise a grand total of zero years in prison after a trial in which he was found guilty.
Wait, it gets even worse, if that is possible. The judge turned to the victim and told her that she needed to forgive her attacker. WHAT!!! Where does this judge get off making any such comment, especially when the rapsist never apologized and showed any remorse.
“While the judge was giving his opinion on the sentence, he first turned to me and told me I needed to forgive my attacker, which is unfathomable,” Boardman told The Times. “He told me I needed to forgive my attacker and I needed to let my attacker walk. It was a punch to the gut from the justice system — or from one judge.”
The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office confirmed the accuracy of Eisgruber’s remarks.
EXIT QUESTION: What is more criminal, a sicko husband who drugs and rapes his wife or the judge that gives this depraved individual a slap on the wrist?
Pregnant Sudanese Christian Woman Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Faces Death Sentence in Sudan for Converting From Islam … She Refused to Recant her Faith Declaring, “I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.”
TAKE A LOOK AMERICA AT THE REAL WAR ON WOMEN AND WHO IS DOING IT, HINT … IT IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ITS ISLAM.
27 year old Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, a wife and mother expecting another child, was sentenced to death by a Sudanese court for apostasy. The Court ruled that she is Muslim because her father was Muslim, even though she was raised Christian. The court ruled she left Islam and therefore the pregnant Meriam is subject to receive 100 lashes for adultry and then be hanged. Before imposing this heinous sentence, the court gave her an opportunity to recant her Christian faith, but Elnabi said Ibrahim refused to do so, declaring: “I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.”
“We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam. I sentence you to be hanged,” Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa told Mrs Ibrahim, addressing her by her father’s name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.
Mrs Ibrahim also faces a sentence of flogging for adultery on the grounds that her marriage to a Christian man from South Sudan is considered void under Islamic law. She will be given 100 lashes. Because her father was Muslim, she was considered by the court to be the same.
Oh wait Sharia law is pro-woman after all … it prohibits the execution of pregnant women. Instead, the sentence is delayed until two years after lactation. UNREAL.
Ibrahim’s lawyer, Mohamed Jar Elnabi, said that he plans to ask an appeals court to review the sentence, and could file the request as soon as Sunday. Elnabi argues that Sudan’s constitution allows religious conversion without restriction.
On Thursday, a Khartoum court convicted Ibrahim of apostasy, or the renunciation of faith, and sentenced her to death.
Ibrahim was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6, and she was raised by her mother as a Christian.
Her lawyer, Mohamed Jar Elnabi, said the case started after Ibrahim’s brother filed a complaint against her.
The brother alleged Ibrahim had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man.
Because her father was Muslim, the Sharia law court considered her to be the same. It refused to recognize her marriage to a Christian and also convicted her of adultery, with an additional sentence of 100 lashes.
The death ruling for Ibrahim drew condemnation from Western embassies in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and international rights groups, including Amnesty International.
When are people going to comprehend that Muslim Sharia Law cares little about woman and Islam has nothing to do with freedom of religion.
“The Embassies of the United States of American, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands in Khartoum express their deep concern over the apostasy ruling handed down on Sunday in the trial of Meriam Yahia Ibhrahim Ishag,” said a statement posted on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum.
“We call upon the Government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs, a right which is enshrined in international human rights law as well as in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution,” the statement added.
Background of this atrocity … Her own brother ratted her out, who filed a complaint against her, alleging that she had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man.
Amnesty International said Ibrahim was arrested and charged with adultery in August 2013 after a family member reportedly claimed that she was committing adultery because of her marriage to a Christian South Sudanese man.
Under Sudan’s Islamic Shari’a law, a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim man, thus any such marriage is considered to be adultery. The court later added the charge of apostasy when Ibrahim asserted that she was a Christian and not a Muslim.
EXIT QUESTION: WHERE IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S CONDEMNATION OF SHARIA LAW AND WHERE IS HIS OUTRAGE OVER THIS WAR ON WOMEN?
Posted May 18, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Appeals Court, Barack Obama, Child Welfare, Civility, Crime, Epic Fail, Islam/Muslims, Islamist, Islamofascist, Jihad, Judicial, Justice, Legal - Court Room - Trial, Middle East, Murder, Radical Islam, Sharia Law, Sudan, War on Woman, War on Women, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 2 comments
Former New England Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez Indicted on Two Counts of First Degree Murder in 2012 Drive-By Killing of Two Men in Boston, MA
MORE TROUBLE FOR FORMER NFL STAR AARON HERNANDEZ …
Former New England Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez was indicted Thursday on two counts of first degree murder for the 2012 drive-by shootings of two men in Boston, Massachusetts. Hernandez was also indicted on three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and an additional count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Hernandez is alleged to be the shooter in the July 16, 2012 drive-by murder of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado. Aaron Hernandez is currently residing in the crowbar hotel awaiting his trial for first-degree murder charges in the shooting death of Odin Lloyd, whose body was discovered June 2013 in an industrial park near Hernandez’s mansion. Following the death of Lloyd and Hernandez’s involvement, he then became under suspicion of for involvement in the unsolved 2012 double murder.
From NFL star to now potential triple murderer … UNREAL.
Former NFL star Aaron Hernandez has been indicted in the July 2012 killings of two Boston men, allegations that come a year after what had been a cold case investigation into the late-night drive-by shooting was revived — seemingly by chance — as investigators zeroed in on the former New England Patriot’s alleged involvement in another killing.
A grand jury indicted Hernandez on two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and an additional count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
Now, prosecutors say the former NFL tight end was the shooter in the July 16, 2012, slayings of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado, who were killed in a drive-by shooting after leaving a popular Boston nightclub.
“Mr. Abreu and Mr. Furtado were ambushed and executed as they drove home,” said Daniel Conley, the Suffolk County district attorney. The Boston Globe first reported the indictment Thursday.
The men, along with three others, were in a BMW at Herald and Shawmut streets when prosecutors say an SUV pulled up beside them and Hernandez opened fire with a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber pistol from the driver’s side. Surveillance video captured Hernandez’s SUV circling the block near the Cure Lounge on Tremont Street and passing the victims “at a slow rate of speed” before they got into their own car, according to court documents released earlier this year.
“Our investigation has not uncovered any evidence that these two groups were known to each other, but their chance encounter inside the club triggered a series of events that ended in the murders,” Conley told reporters at a news conference this morning. “For us, this case was never about Aaron Hernandez. This case was about two victims who were stalked, ambushed, and senselessly murdered on the streets of the city they called home … On the morning Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado were killed, they were described in media reports as being tied to a Cape Verdean gang based in Dorchester. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither of them were involved in gangs, guns, or violent crime, and that characterization was unfair to their memory and their families. We have nothing but sympathy for them and their ordeals.”
Judge Gayle Williams-Byers Ordered 62 Year Old Edmond Aviv Convicted of Harassing a Neighbor & Her Disabled Children to Stand on Street Corner with a sign that says,”I AM A BULLY”s a bully. to hold the sign for five hours Sunday
JUSTICE … Neighborhood bully finally got what was coming to him.
Municipal Court Judge Gayle Williams-Byers ordered 62-year old Edmond Aviv to display the sign for five hours Sunday that said, “I AM A BULLY!” The order comes in response to the neighborhood jerk harassing and bullying. According to court records, Aviv has feuded with his neighbor Sandra Prugh for the past 15 years. According to court records, Prugh stated in a letter to the court that Aviv had called her an ethnic slur, [monkey momma], while she was holding her adopted black children, who have developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy and epilepsy, spit on her several times, regularly threw dog feces on her son’s car windshield, and once smeared feces on a wheelchair ramp. However, the most recent case stemmed from Aviv being annoyed at the smell coming from Prugh’s dryer vent when she did laundry, in retaliation, Aviv hooked up kerosene to a fan, which blew the smell onto Pugh’s property. The judge also ordered Aviv to serve 15 days in jail and to undergo anger management classes and counseling. Aviv also had to submit an apology letter to Prugh.
A man accused of harassing a neighbor and her disabled children for the past 15 years sat at a street corner Sunday morning with a sign declaring he’s a bully, a requirement of his sentence.
Municipal Court Judge Gayle Williams-Byers ordered 62-year-old Edmond Aviv to display the sign for five hours Sunday. It says: “I AM A BULLY! I pick on children that are disabled, and I am intolerant of those that are different from myself. My actions do not reflect an appreciation for the diverse South Euclid community that I live in.”
The Northeast Ohio Media Group reported that Aviv arrived at the corner just before 9 a.m., placing the hand-lettered cardboard sign next to him as he sat in a chair. Within a couple of minutes, a passing motorist honked a car horn.
Court records show Aviv pleaded no contest in February to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge. His attorney didn’t return a telephone call for comment.
The Names of the Six Jurors who Acquitted George Zimmerman in the Death of Trayvon Martin Made Public
The six jurors in the George Zimmerman murder case better change their phone numbers to unlisted.
As reported in the Orlando Sentinel, the names of the six member jury panel that acquitted George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin have been made public for the first time, after a new court order. RUT-ROH, these folks are in for a world of unwanted phone calls and possible home visits. Hopefully, the order will be stayed so that the individuals could prepare for this.
The names of the six-member jury panel that acquitted George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin have been made public for the first time, after a new court order, records show.
Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, who had previously ordered the jurors’ identifying information be kept confidential, granted access to the names in a ruling March 21.
Zimmerman’s defense asked the judge in June to keep the names secret until six months after the verdict. The judge set no timeline then, but noted in her new order they have been withheld more than eight months.
Attempts to reach the jurors by phone and in-person Thursday were unsuccessful.
Judge Jan Jurden Sentences du Pont Heir, Robert H. Richards IV, Probation for Raping His 3 Year Old Daughter Because ‘He Would Not Fare Well’ in Prison
WTF … who cares whether this child rapist would fare well in prison or not!!! How could anyone call this Justice?
Judge Jan Jurden, a Superior Court judge needs to be thrown off the bench after her insane sentencing decision for a child rapist. Judge Jurdan unbelievably sentenced Robert H. Richards IV to probation for the rape and molestation of his then 3 year old daughter stating, he “will not fare well” in prison. WHAT!!! Prison is not meant to be nice, it is meant to be a punishment and to keep predators away from society. However, this misguided judge actually said that prison life would adversely affect Richards. What about the adverse affect that his daughter faces thanks to his rape? So what was the “unique circumstances” that the judge made her decision, his wealth?
Robert H. Richards IV
A Superior Court judge who sentenced an heir to the du Pont fortune to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter wrote in her order that he “will not fare well” in prison and suggested that he needed treatment instead of time behind bars, according to Delaware Online.
Court records show that in Judge Jan Jurden’s sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards confused several criminal justice authorities in Delaware, who said that her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists.
Jurden gave Richards, who had no previous criminal record, an eight-year prison term, but suspended all the prison time for probation.
According to the following site, Judge Jurden’s present term ends May 29, 2013. Not soon enough!!!
UPDATE I: Judge said du Pont heir ‘will not fare well’ in prison.
O’Neill said he and his deputies have often argued that a defendant was too ill or frail for prison, but he has never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”
Richards was no frail defendant, court records show, listing him at 6 feet, 4 inches tall and between 250 and 276 pounds. Nor do court records cite any physical illnesses.
O’Neill said the way the Richards case was handled might cause the public to be skeptical about “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.”
Jurden, who has been a judge since 2001, and Superior Court President James T. Vaughn Jr. did not respond to questions last week about the case.
A du Pont family heir who raped his 3-year-old daughter nearly a decade ago but received no prison time now faces a lawsuit from his former wife that accuses him of sexually abusing his toddler son.
Robert H. Richards IV, 47, who is supported by a trust fund and who paid $1.8 million for his 5,800-square-foot mansion near Winterthur Museum, pleaded guilty in 2008 to fourth-degree rape of his daughter. Currently on probation, he has never been charged with crimes against his son.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME … REMEMBER WHEN LAWS USED TO PROTECT OR PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM?
How can it be that a man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law? Massachusetts highest court ruled the following on Wednesday, “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing.” The Court overruled a lower court and stated that the State law “does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA.” Unbelievable! What ever happened to intent? Hell, what ever happened to Justice?
Just curious, what would have happened if he was doing this on a play ground?
A man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Wednesday.
The Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female riders’ skirts and dresses.
The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s justice is not only blind, it’s stupid as well.
Michael Dunn Found Guilty on 4 of 5 Counts, 3 Counts of Attempted 2nd Degree Murder in the ‘Loud Music Murder’ Trial …. Judge Declares Mistrial on the Count of Murder of Shooting Death of 17 Year Old Jordan Davis
A verdict is in for the Michael Dunn “loud music” trial …
The jury has returned a guilty verdict on 4 of 5 counts against Michael Dunn, including three for attempted second-degree murder. However, the jury had deliberated for nearly 40 hours but was deadlocked and could not come to a unanimous decision on count one, the first-degree murder in the death of black teen, Jordan Davis. The jurors could have decided not to convict Dunn on that charge but instead find him guilty on lesser charges such as manslaughter. Or they could have acquitted him altogether on this count. Earlier in the day after the jury had stated they had reached verdicts on 4 of 5 counts, but were having difficulty on the first count, judge Healey brought the jurors into the courtroom and recited them an Allen charge, which is an instruction to continue deliberations and make a decision. However, the jury could not come to a conclusion on count one. Circuit Judge Russell Healey declared a mistrial for the murder count. The shooting happened on November 23, 2012 outside a Jacksonville convenience store. Michael Dunn will be sentenced March 24, 2014.
Jurors did convict Dunn of the second-degree attempted murders of Tevin Thompson, Leland Brunson and Tommie Stornes, and also convicted him of a fourth count of firing bullets into the vehicle all four teenagers were in.
State attorney Angela Corey will have to decide whether to try dunn again for Davis’ murder.
Supporters of both Dunn and Davis appeared crestfallen after the verdict was announced with the parents of both men fighting back tears. Ron Davis, father of Jordan, held his wife and cried so
The Florida jury in the case of Michael Dunn has found him guilty on four charges, including three for attempted second-degree murder, but they couldn’t reach a verdict on the most significant charge — first-degree murder in the death of Jordan Davis.
After the decisions were read out Saturday night in court, Judge Russell Healey — who moments before had said that the jury had reached a verdict on all counts — declared a mistrial on the murder count.
This possibility had seemingly been floated around since 4:45 p.m. Saturday, when the 12 jurors sent a note saying they’d decided on four of the five counts that Dunn faces. But they hadn’t unanimously reached a verdict “on count 1 or any of the lesser included offenses related to it.”
Count 1 is first-degree murder for the shooting death of 17-year-old Davis.
Jurors could have decided not to convict Dunn on that charge but instead find him guilty on lesser charges such as manslaughter. Or they could have acquitted him altogether on this count.
Michael Dunn – Pic from Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office
The jury in the Michael Dunn murder trial found him guilty of three counts of attempted second-degree Saturday but a mistrial was declared on a first-degree murder charge after the 12 jurors couldn’t agree on it.
The Brevard County man was charged with fatally shooting 17-year-old Jordan Davis, of Marietta, Ga., in 2012 after they got into an argument over music coming from the parked SUV occupied by Davis and three friends outside a Jacksonville convenience store. Dunn, who is white, had described the music to his fiancee as “thug music.”
Dunn’s trial started Feb. 3, and jury deliberations began Wednesday and lasted more than 30 hours over four days.
Liberal & Obama Supporter Attorney Jonathan Turley Says Expansion of Barack Obama’s Presidential Powers Threatens Liberty
WOW, IF THIS DOES NOT WAKE PEOPLE UP, NOTHING WILL … LIB ATTY AND OBAMA SUPPORTER BLASTS OBAMA’S ACTIONS
Last night on ‘The Kelly Files,’ Jonathan Turley, a liberal Constitutional attorney and Obama supporter said a mouthful last night with regards to the imperial president, Barack Obama’s “unilateral” and Unconstitutional actions. Turley stated, “I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left” and Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism.”
This is a must watch interview and remember, this is coming from a lib. Turley is basically describing … “TYRANNY”.
KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that soundbite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we’ve lost that.
TURLEY: Well, I’m afraid it’s quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.
And what we’ve been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that’s what the president is doing. I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.
KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven’t been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.
TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.
And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.
KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What’ so bad that will come of this?
TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don’t believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we’re beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, ‘I’m going to ignore this,’ or, ‘I’m going to shift funds that weren’t appropriated by Congress into this area.’
The president’s State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it’s dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we’ve never seen it to this extent.
KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn’t have — they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits –which they’ve done — I mean, what are they supposed to do?
TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they’re just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.
But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.
I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn’t matter what party held the White House. But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country.