State Courts, Federalist Principles

New York City is now faced with a budgetary crunch. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as CEO of New York City, is now doing what any other CEO would and should do in such a situation -- he is looking for ways to cut expenditures. One such cost-cutting measure contemplated by the Bloomberg administration is the demotion and/or layoff of some Deputy Sheriffs. The Deputy Sheriffs, what with their union representation, went to court to attempt to keep their jobs.

And Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman (in New York, the Supreme Court is the LOWEST court of general jurisdiction, the trial court) issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the demotions or layoffs until a hearing is held and the TRO is lifted.

Bloomie didn't like the Judge's decision, and he was not reticent to express his mind, in relatively strident terms, on his weekly radio program. Specifically, he called upon Judge Jonathan Lippman, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals (the Highest court in the State of New York), to step in and give Justice Goodman a talking-to.

For those unfamiliar with court procedures, this would constitute a significant circumvention of the normal order of things (and in fact would be highly illegal). According to the duly legislated procedures, Justice Goodman will hold her hearing, and then, if any party is dissatisfied, they can appeal to the Appellate Division. Then, and only then (and only if the statutory conditions for appealability pertain), can the case go to the Court of Appeals and be heard by Chief Judge Lippman.

And now, the New York County Lawyers Association has come down very hard against Bloomie's judge-bashing remarks.


I have mixed feelings about this all. On one hand, the Mayor should be able to control the NYC budget, and cut back on expenses. On the other hand, the Deputy Sheriffs have the right to fight to keep their jobs. And yes, Bloomberg's remarks were very high-handed, and I'll even go so far to say that they were unbecoming of a man who is supposed to set the public tone for law and order. But he does have certain freedoms of expression.

The NYCLA does have credibility, and has long occupied the moral high ground. After all, in the early 1950's, NYCLA admitted members without regard to race, ethnicity, religion or gender when the other leading lawyer's professional organization in New York City, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, effectively discriminated against Jews, Irish, Blacks and women (though ABCNY has certainly distanced itself far beyond that mindset during the ensuing years).

And Justice Goodman, whose accomplished career as a journalist did not come to an abrupt halt at her robing ceremony, does not seem to be fazed by Hizzoner's strident remarks.

What is now happening is precisely what "Publius" (it is uncertain whether it was Alexander Hamilton or James Madison) expounded in Federalist Paper No. 51, which was specifically addressed to the People of the State of New York and published in the New York Packet on 8 February 1788:


"To what expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."

In other words, the various branches of the government must provide checks and balances upon one another so that no one branch oversteps its bounds.

Those Deputy Sheriffs may well be cut from the public payroll, or they may continue to burden New York City's budget (and being that the New York City budget is heavily subsidized by infusions from Albany, the burden will fall more upon the taxpayers of the State than upon the City). Whichever way the matter is ultimately resolved, it will be done so in a manner that keeps too much power from being concentrated in the hands of too few. It may not be the most efficient way in the world, but given Mr. Bloomberg's proven propensity to play the nanny in the personal lives of his constituents, I'll take a little inefficiency over an unchecked appetite for tyranny.

Nanny Says You May Vote

I'm busy, fatigued, and burnt out, so this will be a short post.

Seems that the New York State Board of Elections has not yet mailed out all the absentee ballots to the voters, including and especially the military servicepeople who are getting their toochases shot at to defend us and our freedom. So now all the politicians are castigating the BOE (as they, and everyone else, rightly well should).

The BOE already got a waiver from the Department of Justice until 1 October, but they still haven't complied with the law. Apparently, the BOE has refused help from other individuals and agencies as they have fallen behind in the matter.

I share everyone's indignation! What I find ironic, however, is NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's grandstanding on the issue. In America, the ballot is the quintessential exemplar of autonomy and free choice. Since when is Bloomie a proponent of free choice? He wants to prohibit the use of food stamps to buy sodas, he has pushed through legislation to cut out the unhealthy transfats in restaurants, and he has already curtailed people's right to smoke. And I won't even begin to discuss the Second Amendment issues as they affect New Yorkers.

Now understand that I personally wish to see the fatsos (including and especially my dear wife) take better care of their health and stop bulking up on the fattening foods. And I am in total agreement that smoking is a burning health hazard (pun intentional).

But evil as cancer and obesity may be, Bloomie's attitude that the people of New York (and America -- he has the White House on his radar) need a nanny state to make their personal choices for them is even more pernicious.

I therefore find it most ironic that Mike Bloomberg is sticking up for New Yorkers' free choice when he himself has done so much to remove our free choice options.

Bell, Sharpton & Obama

On account of the Passover religious holiday, I have been incommunicado for the past 2 days. Actually, our Passover was relatively quiet and uneventful for a change. The main event was that my wife's leftist moonbat cousin stayed with us for the seder, so we got into some interesting political discussions as we always do.

The thermometer went up a few degrees when I referred to the Junior Senator from Illinois who now aspires to the White House by his first, middle and last names, and then, upon Cousin Shira's vehement protestations that "he's not a Muslim" (I didn't say that he was), questioned her double standard with respect to the use of the proper noun "Rodham" in referring to the Junior Senator from New York, also a White House wannabe.

But we enjoy her company anyway, and there are no personal hard feelings.

Well, anyway, Passover has passed over, and, for the first time in over a week, I had a beer (in fact, I used the beer to make havdalah, the ceremony to mark the passing of the holiday (or, more often, the Sabbath) into the ordinary week). After I post this, I intend to have my first shot of whiskey (specifically, Jack Daniel's) since before Pesach. For the uninitiated, any form of wheat, oats, rye, barley or spelt which has been left to ferment or leaven is verboten on Passover, which puts beer and whiskey off limits. But don't feel too bad for us! We did quite well with wines, Carmel 777 Brandy and some Jelinek Slivovitz.


During the time of these last days of Passover, the big news item is the Sean Bell story, or rather, the Fat Al Sharpton story regarding the shooting of Sean Bell by some NYPD officers. I actually was on the side of Sean Bell's family -- at first! But as soon as it became clear that Fat Al would be welcomed with open arms by the family, I knew that the NYPDers merited my empathy.

My take on it:

A. Two of the three NYPDers who shot Sean Bell are b-l-a-c-k. This isn't a racial thing, it's a NYPD thing.

B. As Judge Cooperman made clear, the issue was strictly one of criminal liability under the New York criminal statutes. The civil trial will probably cost the NYPD some bucks (as, perhaps, it should).

C. Fat Al is up to his usual civil disturbance tactics. And others are doing his bidding for him by going further. Judge Cooperman's home is now under 24-hour surveillance, and the NYPD has already received a semi-credible threat that cops would be targeted by drive-by shooters. There may be some significant trouble yet!

D. If I were a White House wannabe other than Barack Hussein Obama, I would want there to be a full-blown race riot in New York City, so that I could connect the dots between Bell and Sharpton and Barack Hussein. Similarly, if I were an aspirant to the New York City Mayor's chair or the New York State Governorship, I would want to see Mike Bloomberg get his face smeared with poop from a New York City race riot.

Query: Has Fat Al Sharpton taken a retainer fee from any of the following:

1. John McCain?
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton?
3. Andrew Cuomo?
4. Thomas Suozzi?
5. Thomas Gulotta?
6. Christine Quinn?
7. Michael Balboni?