Corrupt judges, corrupt system

Although yesterday this commentary referred to the decision by a Massachusetts judge to “protect the [US} Department of Education,” we think this deserves more analysis. And frankly, more anger.

To quote The Donald: “After 45 years, the United States spends more money on education by far than any other country and spends likewise, by far, more money per pupil, and it’s not even close. But yet, we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of success. Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them.”

So we have a sitting District Judge in Massachusetts acting as though he ruled all Fifty States – a common condition these days. We can expect the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court to uphold this, for various reasons. (Although as one wag pointed out, this judge said that the POTUS could not disestablish the Department because it was established by Congress and so only Congress had the power to do so. Based on that, the commenter pointed out, The Donald can immediately get rid of about 160 of the 250 major federal agencies, since the Congress did not pass legislation to establish those – just approved using stolen money to fund them!)

There were two cases. One was brought by two Massachusetts school districts and by various “education groups” such as the American Federation of Teachers. The other was initiated by twenty-one Democratic State Attorneys General.

There are many alarm bells rung by this.

First, of course, to call the AFT an “education group” is like calling the Teamsters a “transportation company.” The AFT, like the NEA, is a union. A labor union. It does not provide education to anyone, except possibly to its own members. Even then, we could argue it is not education. Rather, these unions serve up propaganda.

These unions (like most large unions) are the product and purveyors of corruption: they pretend to truly represent their members: workers. But in fact, they are parasites on their members.

Most school districts – especially the larger, urban districts – are also corrupt. And fail to actually provide the services to their students (and to the community) that they exist to provide. The results of fifty years of testing of students demonstrate this. Taking money and failing to provide the services for which you receive money? Dishonest. Corrupt. Evil.

While we cannot speak about all twenty-one Attorneys General, we often read of a few of them. And again, we submit that they are corrupt. Politically partisan and acting to promote political interests and not upholding the laws they are sworn to support. But we do note that their tactics: joining together and suing the FedGov (or part thereof) in a district court? It does not seem to be a constitutional way of doing things. And for that matter, we question whether or not they have “standing” in court to do so. Based on many, many court decisions that have rejected a case because of a lack of standing. (There is a lengthy discussion of this issue at Stevevladeck.com.)

A greater question is this: where and how does the US Constitution authorize the FedGov – ANY branch thereof – to regulate, support, fund, or govern the education of children and college students? Where? Did Congress actually have the power to establish this massive bureaucracy way back in the 1970s? Or fund it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars since then?

And of course, does not the President (as well as Congress) have the power to take action to “punish” (get rid of) an agency which does not accomplish the mission given to it?

TPOL has addressed the dangers of powerful judges and judicial power in general dominating the other two branches of the FedGov. And even more so, over the States. To try and apply a district ruling over every State – and every part of the FedGov – seems to be a tad tyrannical. And there is definitely a question as to whether all of these States have standing and that their Attorneys General have the power to sue on behalf of whatever State agencies can claim to be harmed by Trump’s actions. It is clear that they cannot sue on behalf of their State residents who might be (or have been) terminated by The Donald.

The key point, though, is that this judge, like so many others, is supporting corruption and government fraud, waste, and abuse by acting to protect the US Department of Education.

READ MORE