The increasing power of the judiciary.

The judicial system increases its own power everyday.  From ruling that Hate Crimes (subjectively ruling that motive for already established crimes is backed by hatred or disdain, and objectively having no difference, i.e. harassment is a simple enough crime on the street but if the perpetrated moves his/her location or makes racist, sexist, or other certain types of remarks it is somehow transformed to a hate crime, see: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/hate-crime-act.html)  to broadening its own powers the include the ability to bypass the existing court structure and invalidate any and all Executive and Congressional acts,  even to the point of declaring themselves the sole interpreter of our Constitution.  In essence the judiciary has given themselves the power to decide what is really law and what laws they disapprove of (despite Americans routinely opposing their decisions and despite congressmen, the President, and Governors from both sides of the fence letting them know they are acting inappropriately.  What seems to be the most fascinating twist is that in order to try a judge for direct and clear violations of civil and federal law, all a judge has to claim is immunity and all charges will be dropped, regardless of the gross incompetence or outright slander/libel, made by the judge even in the course of duty.  They enjoy complete and total immunity no matter how despicable their actions.  The idea is for a consistent judicial system not bogged down by "frivolous" lawsuits.  While this may have been a necessity in the earlier days of our nation, it is now an antiquated relic that disproportionately distributes both power and wealth tho those rare few that have the connections.  It, like sovereign  immunity serves no purpose and indeed gives us the"separate but 'equal idea.  

Proponents argue that judges will always be in fear of suit and thus paralyzed in their duties.  I counter with the simple fact that judges, attorneys, pharmacists, and doctors and all those we place in positions of trust MUST be held at least as accountable to us as they expect us to give them.  If judges are unwilling to stand behind their judgments, then how do we know we can trust them in return?

Finally an update from me!

It may seem hard to believe but it took me quite a long time to decide on how to write this piece.  My disgust for the current state of US affairs aside I am above all a patriot and loyal to the Constitution as it was written (bureaucracy, immunities (both judicial and sovereign), and way too much "judicial review" removed).  I am not, however, loyal to the misinterpretation we call our current government.  Mexico is a case in point.  We are terribly concerned with an immigration threat that while real is less of a threat and more of a nuisance.  We are obsessed with the states that want to govern themselves.  We believe that everyone is a terrorist who has simply committed a crime, no matter how small. And worst of all we build our lives around what is most publicized, not what is true (Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Opera, and Good Morning America dictate everything from our purchases and our filtered news to our mind and bodies).  Case in point is the trip I took to Mexico and what I uncovered there.  The time I had in Mexico was only a full working day yet it was very educational.  Without going more than a few yards from the boat, one can fill one's purse, messenger bag, or even a plain old paper bag with all kinds of "goodies" albeit within schedule IV and below (this includes antibiotics which are like candy it seems but it also includes the controlled substance Soma, a powerful and dangerous muscle relaxant).  Go past the initial gate and into Mexico proper and you can literally write down your pharmaceutical order, as it were, and have almost anything filled.  Finally what you can't find at the legitimate pharmacy is available for a price if one looks enough like a tourist trying to get a quick fix, simply wait to be approached.

Now one may ask how all of this is relevant.  What is the real threat?  It is true that on return to the states I passed through no detector and only had to give my word on a declaration to customs that I had nothing to declare (which was true for me but for anyone smuggling would have been the only thing they had to do to get anything back into the states).  For all this though, I would not recommend an increase in TSA, simply a reassessment of what really is a threat.  However minor this must be it is a very real threat that should be dealt with appropriately (ideally diplomatically).  It should not under any means though be dealt with out of proportion.  This threat, as should all threats, be dealt with a much as it genuinely disrupts US health and should not be dealt with outside of the powers granted (not created by the government) in the Constitution.  When the government fails to do so or acts beyond its lawful powers and non-violent means have failed, any means must be used to restore a government that is constitutional.  The people always have the right to assert their end of the social contract, it is a question therefor of whether we have the courage to do so.

That is my update, look forward to getting back on the ball!