Advertisement

WilliamMarbury

Follow

Comment history

Order in the court: Attorneys make concession in fight over judicial selection

Hey Prof, if it’s you, glad to see you made it back. I very much wish to debate you. But first things first which in my book is disclosure. So before continuing the debate how about some FULL DISCLOSURE? We wouldn’t want people out there thinking your interest in this matter is entirely academic would we?

You are in fact associated with the IHS and were "activated" by them “to weigh in on today’s critical policy issues with research and commentary,” true? And yes, I am a Kansas lawyer. I’m also a big believer in free markets, and probably a Libertarian too, at least in principle.

December 18, 2012 at 8:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Order in the court: Attorneys make concession in fight over judicial selection

Don't you know? The Institute for Humane Studies "help place" Professor Ware at KU and they "activated" him. http://www.supportihs.org/champions Crazy stuff this institute does. It indocrinates, places, and then activates. Sounds like something modeled by Osama.

December 17, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Order in the court: Attorneys make concession in fight over judicial selection

Speaking of secrets . . . Prof. Ware will you please acknowledge your association with the Institute of Humane Studies, and the fact that you are one of the dozens of scholars Kock was speaking of when soliciting 100K to "Activate dozen of scholars to weigh in on today's critical policy issues with research and commentary." http://www.supportihs.org/champions

OBTW, given the extent of your efforts here, Florida, Indiana, and elsewhere, you deserve a raise.

December 17, 2012 at 12:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Process is fine

Prof. Ware, Its me . . . William Marbury. What's your point? Do you agree that "judicial review" existed before even me? Do you still believe in 3 branches of government and the separation of powers doctrine? Do you agree that judicial review is a necessary and inherent function of the judiciary in both our Federal and State constitutional systems of government? Have you read Hamilton's Federalitsts 78 . . . lately? Don't you argree that Hamilton's primary concern was with protecting the judiciary from the influence of our elected leaders? Do you agree that your arguments are more consistent with those made by the Anti-Federalists?

http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/280/...

Finally, don't you agree that we need Judges willing to protect us from the majority, not be beholding to them?

Or, in light of Montoy v. State, 279 Kan. 817, are no longer willing to believe in me?

December 10, 2012 at 2:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )