|
|||
Greetings:
A future history? To your right is the first chapter of how the First Article V Convention to Propose Amendment might have happened. The Kindle edition of the book, some 118 pages, is available on Amazon.com for $5.99. A Paperback version of the book is available from Lulu.com for $7.37. Montgomery Blair Sibley |
Chapter One Winter 2016 I will not fear evil tidings, my heart is
established, in the Lord I have put my trust, My heart is steadfast, I will not be
afraid, and I will see my enemies
crushed. Psalm
112, 7-8 The
Honorable Merrick Brian Garland -- Chief Judge of the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit -- was beyond furious, he was
vengeful. Old
Testament God vengeful and in his right hand lay a
mighty swift sword of retribution. He
had done everything right: Graduated summa cum laude
as valedictorian from Harvard College; graduated magna cum laude
from Harvard Law School where he was a member of the
Harvard Law Review; served as a law clerk for Judge
Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit and then Supreme Court
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. In
1993, Garland joined the new Clinton administration as
deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal
Division of the United States Department of Justice
supervising high-profile domestic-terrorism cases,
including the Oklahoma City bombing He made sure
the results in each case were as ordered and that
significant, but embarrassing, questions remained
unanswered. After
brief stints in a major international law firm --
Arnold & Porter which left him with a net worth of
some $20 million -- President Clinton appointed him to
the federal bench where he rose to the second highest
court in the land -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
where he became its Chief Judge. There
was only one office left for which he had been
preparing his whole life: Justice of the U.S. Supreme
Court. Judge Garland was considered twice for that
office in 2009 and in 2010. Both times he saw himself
passed over by President Obama in favor of the more
politically-correct appointees: women Elena Kagan and
Sonia Sotomayor. So
when Montgomery Blair Sibley raised the issue of the
curious dismissal by the Obama Department of Justice
of the 1985 indictment of the domestic terrorist,
fugitive Elizabeth Duke, Judge Garland had a political
chip he knew would get him the nomination he had so
long craved. In
that matter, for no given reason, a Magistrate Judge
had impersonated a federal judge and signed an order
dismissing the indictment of the Weather Underground
member and U.S. Capitol bombing Elizabeth Duke in
2009. When
Sibley objected to the D.C. Circuit Court, Judge
Garland buried the case to avoid the scandal that an
intellectually honest review would have caused then
President Obama. Thus,
Judge Garland was not surprised when President Obama
on March 16, 2016, nominated him to serve as an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to fill the
vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. Judge
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any
Supreme Court nominee in history. He was a
shoe-in to be approved by the Senate. But
in 2016 the death grip of partisan politics had
tighten its grip on the Constitutionally-mandated
process for approving judicial appointments. Long a
contentious battle, the Republican-controlled Senate
refused to hold a hearing or vote on Judge Garland’s
nomination insisting that the next elected president
should fill the vacancy.
Thus, in January 2017, Obama’s nomination of
Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court expired and
with it any realistic hope of Judge Garland ever
getting to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge
Garland born to a Jewish family, was raised in
Conservative Judaism.
That creed, at its Passover celebration,
recited Psalm 79 as part of the Haggadah: Pour forth Your wrath upon the nations
that do not recognize You and upon the kingdoms that
do not invoke Your name. For they have devoured
Jacob and destroyed his habitation. Pour forth Your
fury upon them and let Your burning wrath overtake
them. Pursue them with anger and destroy them from
beneath the heavens of the Lord." On a cold January 2017 day, sitting at his desk in Chambers, Judge Garland wondered how he could “pour forth” his vengeance on those who denied him his just due? And not just the Republicans in the Senate, but the Democrats as well who played similar politics with the workings of the Republic for their own political party’s advantage. While a shaft of divine light did not stream through the window of his Chambers and highlight the case sitting before him on his desk, it might as well have for Judge Garland saw the case as divine intervention. The case, Sibley v. McConnell and Ryan, in the hands of a judge as canny as Judge Garland, would allow Judge Garland to “destroy them from beneath the heavens of the Lord” all those who had so fouled the Constitution and, more importantly, left Judge Garland an embittered man. |
||