This was a great week in our United States Supreme Court. In fact, it has been beyond that. First, they recognized the necessity that the Government prove that a person charged with illegal analog drugs know that in fact that the drugs are illegal analog drugs, and that the belief that they are something else that is legal provides the defendant with a defense. Ergo, the lack of specific intent to violate the law. Next the Big Court found that the Armed Career Criminal Act was void for lack of specificity and thus violative of due process of law. Then they found that discrimination in housing can be found upon a conclusion supported by circumstantial evidence without the production of direct evidence. And lastly, they ruled that States cannot ban same sex marriage. A banner week. Now can we turn to our very own Minnesota Supreme Court and how they did rule and how we project they would have ruled on the same subjects. First, specific intent was found to be completely unnecessary in State v. Wenthe. If you are a priest and you have sex with a member of the congregation you are guilty of a sex crime whether you believed you were the person's pastor or not. Specific intent doesn't impress the majority of our Supreme Court, with the exception of Justice Page, who has labeled this decision as dangerous and new and usupportable law. It's worse than that. It is evidence that our Supreme Court has little or no understanding of the basic tenets of criminal law as it has been developed down through the ages. How would they have ruled if they had been presented with the same questions that our United States Supreme Court was presented with as detailed above. Since they don't cotton to the venerable reasoning that gives us the necessity for specific intent in most crimes, they would have held that if the pills in your hand were inscrutable then you must be guilty of something. You see bad people go around with pills and they must be guilty. There is no way they (MN. Sup Ct.) would have held the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutional because they would have manipulated the language, twisted the meaning and claimed they could understand it so why didn't everybody else. After all, look at the folks it was meant to apply to and fact that it calls for life in prison should be of no moment. Well, in re same sex marriage, if our state had prohibited it. Gosh, it's the will of the legislature and who are they to oversee that. (which of course is their job) Chief Justice Gildea, Justice Anderson, Justice Stras, Justice Dietzen would have affirmed the right of the legislature to regulate State licensure and would see no problem. Justice Lillihaug and Justice Wright I am unable to predict and Justice Page would have dissented seeing that type of statute as discriminatory, as it clearly is. We live in a state with a Supreme Court that leaves something to be desired. Again, we would be far better off if our Court was under the leadership of Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama. He follows the dictates of the Ten Commandments and his Supreme Being. I really don't know who our Court follows with one exception. It seems, in my humble opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court decides what result they want and then backs into it. Anybody care to disagree? Take a look at United District Court Judge Schiltz's opinion in the post conviction case of State v. Bobadilla. (Bobadilla v. Carlson, 570 Fed. Sup. 2nd 1098, Aff'd, 575 Fed 3rd 785). The Judge found that the Minnesota Supreme Court disregarded settled Federal Law and manipulated the facts to reach their desired end. It appeared in that case, that Justice Page was the only Justice that read the case law from the federal courts and understood it. What could be worse conduct by a State Supreme Court. They decided they didn't care for Mr. Bobadilla and manipulated the facts and law to keep him in prison. Make you feel safe?
Minnesotans are quick to condemn Chief Judge Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his single minded stance on the issue of gay marriage. He has steadfastly disobeyed, it would seem, the concept of Federal Supremacy in ordering clerks in Alabama counties to not issue marriage licenses for same sex couples. Despite federal edicts he won't countenance such behavior. Judge Moore is not just being contrary for no reason. It is his firm belief that he is answering to higher law than federal. He sincerely believes that he must answer to God rather than man. I believe he is wrong but I also can see his sincerity. Besides that observation this writer has it on good authority that before he was removed from the trial court bench in Alabama for refusing to remove the ten commandments from his courthouse he was a pretty good and compassionate trial court judge. I would bring to the attention of many of our trial court judges the commandments themselves and suggest they guide their decisions by same. They really are beacons for guiding our lives no matter who the author was---man or God. Now let us move on to Minnesota Chief Justice Gildea, who also refuses to follow Supreme Court edict. A reading of her decision in State v Bernard, issued on February 11 is written evidence of same. In Missouri v. McNeely the Supreme Court of the United States made it crystal clear that when a driver is detained for DUI, and a police officer can reasonably obtain a warrant for a blood draw, he must do so, or the draw of blood is unconstitutional without the defendant's consent. It is easy to understand the case. It is written in English, which is our native language. Making it even more poignant is the fact that the United States Supreme Court pointed to the dissent, by retired Justice Meyer, in a earlier Minnesota Supreme Court decision, endorsing the position taken in McNeely by the United States Supreme Court. That is, of course, a pro tanto holding that the Minnesota Supreme Court's position on the issue was clearly wrong. Apparently, the majority of our Court doesn't like that direct a refutation of their position. In Bernard, as stated by Justices Page and Stras in their dissent, the majority, lead by Chief Gildea, just won't accept the Supremacy of the Federal Law and acts as if it was never decided. Why, one might inquire? There is no mention in the opinion that God has spoken to the Chief and her four supporters so the sincerity of Judge Moore is not manifested. The majority just made it up by a contrived and transparent result directed opinion where they apply Chiml v. California and make a claim that our Implied Consent Law is constitutionally saved under a doctrine of search incident to arrest that in the wildest dreams of the authors of Chiml could never be justified. Moore answers to a higher power, our Court just creates from whole cloth.