Sunday, November 28, 2010

Federal judge to Houston: Keep collecting red-light ticket money

In the wake of a plebiscite banning their use, a federal judge has ordered the City of Houston to continue issuing tickets using red-light cameras, reports Bradley Olson at the Houston Chronicle:
The contract, which covers the use of 70 devices at 50 intersections, was scheduled to run until 2014. In the event of a cancellation, ATS had 45 days to take the cameras down.

The order issued on Friday halts the removal of the cameras until the matter is resolved in federal court.
I can see requiring the City to give 45 days notice before ending contract, but would think petitioners and the voters who supported them will be pretty grumpy if the judge orders the city to continue the contract through 2014. The briefs in the federal case should be interesting reading when they're filed. Olson reports that: "The city and ATS will brief the validity of the referendum under municipal, state and national laws by next Friday, according to [Judge Lynn] Hughes' order."


Chris H said...

Ah Bastiat
"The strange phenomenon of our times — one which will probably astound our descendants — is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.

What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation."

rodsmith said...

i think the voters should visit the court and have a long long talk with this idiot of a judge and ask him/her to explain why when the contract CONTAINS the option to cancel the contral that just what friggin business is it of his...once WE have spoken...Then give him 24hrs to reverse his decison and get out of the subject or they come back and vote on him with violence.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love good ol' Frederic (Bastiat). He also said that False Philanthropy and STUPID GREED were the downfall of a nation. He had much to say about LEGAL PLUNDER. If only every high school in America required reading of The Law, this nation would be radically different in a short time as statesmen supplanted politicians.

Anonymous said...

Is this legislating from the bench?

john said...

Thanks for naming the judge. Old Lynn Hughes is a plague to a free people. Go visit his court. He's God, as far as you know. He surrounds his royal highness with Marshals. He promotes his general welfare, not The People's.
There was never a law, and certainly not a federal law. What twisted technicality gives him jurisdiction? Is the city afraid of having to pay off their contract, and it's with Arizona or some other State? What a fine kettle of fish.
When the judiciary judges for the executive or any other combo that makes them rulers as opposed to checks and balances, we are lost. Neither civil solution nor due process remains:
We don't need no stinkin' laws or Constitutions when we got bench Gods in black robes.
This is tyranny. We need NULLIFICATION, as the feds are jackals.
Also, the land for the federal court is not ceded. We need to evict them.
If only we had a free media who would expose this treachery to We The Poor People.
And we need to persecute those who put in the red-light camera revenue-raising travesty. Why is it the evil always retire laughing to the bank?
BUT I EXPECT IT CAN NEVER HAPPEN, BECAUSE BIG MONEY IS ON AND THE PEOPLE ARE DUMBED DOWN. I'm sorry, but the lawyers would rather get paid--to them it's apparently worth bowing down & serving fools like Hughes.
I guess they'll wait until hyperinflation. We can't stand together, so individually we are stood upon.