Tag Archives: Court

Court, Court System, Democracy, Election, Federal Government, Government, Immigration, Issues, Judiciary Power, Law, Policy, Senate, Society

Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee Vote To Confirm Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor As Supreme Court Justice – The Nation’s First Latina Supreme Court Justice

Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together (MATT), a non-for-profit dedicated to enhancing quality-of-life issues between Mexico and the United States, congratulates the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their vote to confirm Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as this nation’s first Latina Supreme Court Justice.

Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together

“We are pleased to see how this process finally focused on the issues and the qualifications of this exceptional candidate. We have full confidence that the Senate will do the same and that our next Supreme Court Justice will be Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor. This is an extraordinary moment for us as Americans and an unforgettable day as Latinos,” said MATT Chair Alonso Ancira.

The San Antonio-based organization counts with over 300,000 on-line members throughout the country. “Of note to our members is the political courage demonstrated today on behalf of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who voted in favor of Sotomayor. We congratulate him for voting his conscience and not along party lines,” concludes Ancira.

###

Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together (MATT) was established to serve as the voice of reason influencing policy to improve U.S./Mexico relations. MATT’s mission is to encourage Mexicans and Americans to come together to bridge the gaps of understanding so that we may truly prosper together. MATT has been a vocal advocate for comprehensive immigration solutions, offering innovative public policy solutions, raising public awareness and visiting with policy-makers since 2006. MATT is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of business and thought leaders from the U.S. and Mexico. For more information about MATT.org, visit www.matt.org or call 210-270-0300.

Via EPR Network
More Government press releases

Court, Court System, Government, Issues, Judiciary Power, Law, Legislative Power, Legislature

Judicial conduct issues submitted to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Judicial misconduct charges were filed with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct protesting the decision of three New York State judges to deny a defendant all witnesses for his defense. At issue are allegations that these judges ignored constitutional directives and core principles of due process.

In tandem, the judges, including the Chief Judge of the State of New York, refused to grant a defendant physician his right to any and all witnesses for the support of his defense. “There is a name for hearings and trials that do this,” the doctor said, “they’re called kangaroo courts,” adding “and what is more, as a twist in this case – and undoubtedly hard to believe – is that it was eventually uncovered that one of the judges, for many years, lived at the same residence as that of the plaintiff!”

Invoking several constitutional points, the physician, speaking generically, said that witnesses have the capacity to provide invaluable testimonies for vindication, instantly dissolving fabrications and exposing perjuries. Challenged on professional issues, however, he was summarily denied that right.

“The complaint with the Commission was filed to support all the New York State doctors long subjected to similar calamities of due process, and there are huge numbers of them,” the physician remarked, “in fact, so many, that several bills to address the matter have attempted to make their way through the New York State legislature. Lamentably, they were all vetoed by the former governor of the State of New York.”

“The Commission filing is designed to bring awareness for the need for due process rights for every citizen, including physicians. As poignantly, it seeks to stand up for patients who, in many clinical situations, find that the state’s perfunctory elimination of their physicians’ care is often clearly harmful to their health.” He added, “A central question posed to the Commission is the following: If a judge denies a defendant any and all witnesses for his defense, to what extent does this make it judicial misconduct?”

More information at gsunnen.com

Via EPR Network
More Government press releases