From the AP story:
"'An independent press is as indispensable to liberty as is an independent judiciary,' [The dissenting judge] wrote."
The appeal was denied 13 to 1. I think the judge needs to worry as much or more about an independent judiciary than he does about an independent press. I'm not dissing him. He is clearly a man of principle, unlike his colleagues. But the federal judiciary has devolved into a massive collection of security state worshiping tools. And let's not even go into the state judges. Pam Martens did an excellent and eye-opening piece on the incredible corruption of the New York state judiciary recently: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/18/new-york-is-drowning-in-bribes-and-corruption/.
I was disappointed that only the sane judge was named and quoted. I think that the others should be required to justify their decisions.
I'm trying to fix a spacing issue, but the system keeps tossing it back on edit.
Petitioning the Court for a writ of certiorari (i.e., asking the Supreme Court to hear your case) is far from indicative that the Court will grant it and actually hear the case:
"Between 1989 and 2009, the Court averaged 7,500 cert petitions each term, yet it granted an average of only 93. Those figures translate into a "grant rate" of only 1.2 percent, down from about 7 percent from 1970 to 1988. Even if the typically unmeritorious in forma pauperis petitions are removed from the calculus, the success rate is not much better, rising only to about 3.7 percent."
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.