A COWARD WHO HATES JUSTICE
Text Copyright 2016 Douglas Sczygelski
All Rights Reserved
This ebook is licensed for your personal use only. This e-book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this e-book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you are reading this e-book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Amazon.com and purchase your own copy. You may not quote from this e-book without the permission of the author. To request permission, write to . Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Here’s the short version of what happened. Just a few months ago, Merrick Garland and two other judges decided a lawsuit in which I was a party. Garland and the other two judges ruled against me, and in their opinion, they completely ignored my strongest argument. They failed to discuss it in any way. Does anyone think that is fair? It seems to me that in a free country, where the people rule, public servants such as judges have an obligation to explain their decisions to the people. A judge who refuses to explain his decisions is not a public servant, he’s a tyrant. And anyone can see why Garland and the other two judges did this: They did this because they knew I was right, but they didn’t want to admit that, because they did not like my political views. They knew that if they talked seriously about my strongest argument, they would have to admit I was right and rule in my favor, and they could not bear to do that. If they actually had a logical reason for disagreeing with my strongest argument, why did they not tell me what it was? If you are a judge and you have a logical reason for a decision, why on Earth would you decide to keep it a secret?
Here’s the long version of what happened.
I used to be a federal civil servant, an agriculture inspector for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. I was fired because in my spare time, in the privacy of my own home, I sent some letters to newspapers and people saying we should not militarily intervene in black countries to “create democracy,” as Clinton tried to do in Somalia, because such efforts are almost certain to fail, because the blacks, on the average, are less intelligent than whites and Asians, due to their genes. I never advocated violence, nor any kind of illegal activity. I never advocated taking away any of the rights that black Americans currently have. No co-worker ever filed a complaint against me, and no member of the general public ever did either. My supervisor always gave me good performance evaluations. Yet I was fired without even being given a warning first. It was one strike and you’re out.
Firing me was illegal. You can go to any law library, and the librarian can show you how to look up title 5, section 7323© of the federal statutes, and there you will see that federal civil servants have the right to say whatever they like about “political subjects.” The term “political subjects” is not defined, but surely anyone can see that when you talk about what the government should or should not do, and why or why not, you are talking about a “political subject.” How can a discussion of the reasons for or against military interventions in foreign countries not be a “political subject”? People in Congress and in the media argue about that all the time.
Visit: http://www.Shakespir.com/books/view/625769 to purchase this book to continue reading. Show the author you appreciate their work!
This is the story of how Merrick Garland ruled against a party in a lawsuit, but refused to discuss that party's strongest argument in the opinion that he wrote in that case. The author argues that Garland did this because he knew that party was right, and knew that if he discussed that party's strongest argument he would have to admit that that party was right, and this he did not wish to do, because he dislikes that party's right-wing views. If Garland had a good reason for disagreeing with that party's strongest argument, why was he unwilling to explain his reasoning in the opinion that he wrote?