Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Does this mean Charlie will
Does this mean Charlie will have a chance to return the court to something more balanced and professional so that it is less of a national laughing stock?
Despite so many fine law schools in this state and the quality of the MA judiciary is embarrassingly poor.
Have an example?
The SJC decisions seem to be pretty well reasoned -- at least the ones Adam posts here.
Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd
Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to states
By BRIAN FRAGA
Posted Mar. 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM
Fortunately...
...the Supreme Court cleared up that nonsense.
Um, no...they didn't. Massachusetts IGNORES the Court re: 2A
Massachusetts "system" allows Chiefs of Police to "determine who is suitable or unsuitable" to exercise the Constitutionally protected RIGHT to carry a firearm....These "determinations" are made by Chiefs who have little regard for "average" citizens (translation: non-law enforcement officers) and deprive law abiding citizens of the right to protect themself from violent attack. This liberal wingnut ridiculousness allows the Almighty Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers (aka the "Chiefs") to decide who is "worthy " of being allowed to defend their lives and their family..Meanwhile, their own "Brothers in Blue" have no problem disregarding the law, like the dirtball ex-chief from Waltham who resigned after beating the piss out of his wife - repeatedly....And he did this for several years, all while REGULARLY DENYING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSE TO CARRY A FIREARM....by "ruling" that they were "unsuitable" (even though most had no criminal record and any who did had minor juvenile offenses only)....Meanwhile, Chief L. was hammering his wife's head into refrigerator doors, kitchen cabinets, etc etc....
Yep, great "system" here in the Commonwealth, and the Supreme Court really "cleared up the nonsense". (Bull Crap they did. Massachusetts is a despicable toilet of corruption and Nazi-like rule by THUG chiefs who were wimps when they were kids - until they were awarded a gun and a badge).
Imagine of ANY other Constitutional Amendment were routinely violated this way. Freedom of speech? Only if Chief Bully Wifebeater deems you "suitable" to speak.....Your doors are locked and Chief Bully Wifebeater wants to enter and search your home, question you without a warrant etc? How would you feel if Chief Thug just kicks your door in, deeming it "suitable" for him to do so? Right to speedy trial? How about if Chief A. Hole decides you're "not suitable " for that, and throws you into prison for as long as he wishes until you are deemed "suitable" to stand trial.
Etc etc etc.
Understand now??
Upheld a $75 fee to confront
Upheld a $75 fee to confront your accuser in traffic court - even if you are found not responsible for the offense.
Upheld that the parents of an adult child, who let that child live in their house, assume responsibility for all criminal defense fees of that adult child who will be barred from a public defender based on the parents income and/or assets.
Count the MA SC
As a reason this guy lives here now. Goodrich touched so many lives with its no bs approach to justice for all.
Three of the four judges in
Three of the four judges in the majority opinion in Goodridge were Weld/Cellucci appointees, presumably from a similar well as Baker would be appointing from.