Quote of the Day
CSPOA claims to eschew racist ideology, but in fact its leaders embrace racist and white nationalist ideologies. The growing “constitutional sheriffs” movement intends to increase the risk of conflict between local law enforcement and federal authorities. The movement is animated by the deeply flawed and ahistorical view that county sheriffs hold ultimate law-enforcement authority in each individual county outranking federal and state authority. This deeply flawed and legally incorrect analysis holds that the superiority of county authority is deeply rooted in Anglo-American law. The anti-democratic ideas and quasi-legal theories propounded by the CSPOA and embedded in Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinances have their origins in the writings of William Potter Gale, who founded the posse comitatus movement in the 1960s. They also have their origins in the writings of the Aryan Nation, an antisemitic, white supremist group.
The premise of such writings is the antisemitic and racist conspiracy theory that Jews are at the heart of America’s problems, that people of color are unwitting pawns to be manipulated by one side or the other, and that zealots must prepare for a final battle in the last days. The proponents of these ideas claim that a cabal of elites or globalists (code words for Jews) in the UN, or the fictional New World Order or Zionist Occupational Government, manipulate our federal government and, by extension, state governments.
James C Egan
Judge Oregon Court of Appeals
February 15, 2023
Concurring opinion to Board of Cty. Comm. of Columbia Cty. v. Rosenblum
Via email from Mike B. See also OREGON JUDGED CALLS SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY RACIST, ANTI-Semitic – Oregon Firearms Federation
I find it very telling that the judge believes that if the proponent of a concept was a racist, white supremist, then anyone who also believes the concept is also a racist, white supremist. Does that mean that all people who believe women should have the right to vote are also women? Or all people who believe interracial marriage should be legal are also in an interracial relationship? Or if the originators of the hypothesis that the earth is a sphere, instead of flat, was homosexual all people who currently believe the earth is a sphere are also homosexual?
The judge is not only is the judges opinion “a lie and defamatory” as stated by OFF, it is a indicator of irrational thought. The belief he can read the minds of others.
Who knew the 2nd amendment was written in the 1960’s by the Aryan Nation?
James Madison must have been William Poter Gales pen name?
We live in interesting times.
Too many judges, when they are not writing the controlling opinion of a judgement, use the opportunity to let their personal freak flags fly. This is particularly true of dissents, but also in concurring opinions. Why?
The legitimate use of a published official concurring or dissenting opinion is to lay out some legal reasoning, based in the record, that might be persuasive to a superior court or for a later proceeding on the same subject.
Illegitimate uses of a concurring or dissenting opinion:
drop your own personal political views;
introduce extraneous information not supported by the record;
reference legal theories from outside American jurisprudence as if those were valuable
To do any of those things would be to demonstrate that the person in question does not have appropriate judicial temperament, or that they truly believe they are engaging in a legitimate official action, and thus they are judicially incompetent.
So, while what Judge James C Egan has written is an offense to everyone of sound mind, I propose we treat this as an opportunity. The judge has introduced into the official record his own biases, politics and mal-informed nature. Every case he has ever been the deciding vote in the majority on the subject of the Second Amendment or related issues, is now in question. Certainly, every case going forward has more than sufficient cause to have Judge James C Evan removed from the case for the legitimate fear that he will unjustifiably introduce his own theories of “racism” or whatever into the process.
Those bitching about “Second Amendment sanctuaries” ignore the fact that the idea spread from the “sanctuary cities” movement to prevent the INS from removing illegal immigrants. Of the two, only one has the backing of the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution state a right of individuals to come to this county flouting federal law. So before complaining about law enforcement supporting the Second Amendment, Mr, Ms, or Mx Liberal, find those illegal immigrants and turn them in!
Precisely, and the point I was going to make. Kind of hard to equate the concept of immigration sanctuary cities – like Portland, I believe – with white supremacy and systemic racism. And when Portland rejected the offer to send the National Guard to help prevent the mostly peaceful George Floyd rioters from burning down the city, I presume it was because the mayor and police force are racist Klansmen? Including their bros in the black hoodies and BLM shirts?
Good comments all! The post title could have been;
Borg invasion of judiciary gains new foothold!
(If one’s not willing to add their unique identity to the Borg collective, your a racist!)
Truly hilarious! Like that word actually means something in this day and age?
What it truly did was the reaction. By using that word he automatically identified himself as the enemy of humanity that he is.
And as already mentioned disqualifies himself from the position he fills at this time.
It ain’t justice anymore when it takes off the blindfold, throws away the scale, and only brandishes the sword.
And hey, It ain’t like they didn’t telegraph their move. Or something we didn’t see coming a long way off, right?
Like the guy said; Your country isn’t falling apart. It’s being destroyed. By people with names and addresses.
Thanks, your honor!
P.S. I told you Oregon was one of most corrupt crapholes in the union!
Even if the proponent is racist, or misogynist, or anti-jew, or generically bigoted against anyone not of the same heritage, so what? Holding unpopular or old-fashioned opinions is legal and protected under the First Amendment. I wish people would stop running away from that basic fact.
What gives the left power is people desire to not be called X. The proper response in most cases to being called a nazi, hater, anti-semite, or whatever, true or not, is to shrug and say “Sticks and stones, yadda yadda… what’s your point? Do you have an actual argument?” They have no power if you don’t care what you are called.
Of course he’s irrational, he’s obviously “woke” and a leftist.
Leftist judges can’t issue rulings and opinions based on law because the law and the Constitution aren’t going to support those rulings/opinions. Therefore they have to speak to their demographic….and appeal to emotions.