The Brexit Vote and Self-Rule: The Left Goes Unhinged

By Richard Moss, MD

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, the referendum in Britain to Leave or Remain in the European Union, proponents of the Leave movement won, 52-48%, and a blow for freedom was struck. In a time when the left is ascendant, this was a call for national sovereignty and self-rule. It was also a stunning rebuke of the “progressive” vision for global government. But the battle for liberty is far from over for Britain. It will take a couple of years to disentangle themselves from the web of regulations, taxes, and demands imposed by the European Commission in Brussels. Furthermore, even should that separation be successfully navigated, the UK remains a heavily socialized state. While liberation from the tentacles of Brussels is a good first step, the more difficult battle will be in London. Whether there is appetite for that even greater battle for liberty and smaller government remains to be seen.

For a time, the EU was seen as an emerging superpower whose dominance would rival that of the US. The euro was to be the next global currency. Europe was to become a major diplomatic force. Instead, Britain is fleeing the EU and the euro-zone is a debacle. Economic growth is stagnant. Unemployment is high.

European nations are collapsing under the pressure of debt, damaging monetary policies, overregulation, taxes, and the onslaught of waves of emigration from the wreckage of the Arab world and beyond.
The Euro-zone has been steeped in crisis since 2009. But what would one expect when countries like Germany and Greece and the other nations of southern Europe share a currency but do not share fiscal practices and restraints, culture and work ethic? All of this was minimized because the transnational vision held by the bureaucrats running the EU transcended such dated notions. Nations and their unique culture, identity, history, and language were relics from a bygone era, an archaic construct to be discarded and replaced by the new global model. Furthermore, the left prefers to control people not through the democratic processes of nation states, which can be messy, but through vast centralized unelected bureaucracies like the EU. Ultimately, the entire world would be governed by the United Nations or some version of it. The nation state, for the left, is a barrier to the “ideal” of global government.

But the vision of a borderless world bereft of national identity is a fatal conceit of the transnational/left. The reality is that most people value their national identity, culture, language, and religion. It is part of their inheritance, a form of national expression that many take pride in and appreciate. It is no different than the desire of African, Asian, Latin American or Muslim cultures to preserve their heritage, which, of course, the left will defend to the death. So long as it is not European or “Western” culture, which they abhor. But the “masses” reject utopian pipedreams and policies that import millions of people into their countries who share little with them, change their demographics and cultures, and dramatically increase costs and social strife. It is not “racist” or bigoted to feel this way as the left reflexively accuses. It is natural and sound. For most citizens, the nation state is also the indispensable mechanism for democratic accountability and practice, however flawed it may be. They also don’t care for sclerotic economies and high unemployment caused by policies imposed by Brussels.

Youth unemployment in Greece and elsewhere stands at 25-50% devastating a generation. Greece should have been forced from the euro-zone, to return to its own currency, to devalue it, increase exports, and work its way out of recession in regular fashion. But that was not permitted because others would have followed.
Then there was the security disaster on top of the economic failure, the disastrous handling of the great migration crisis. The European commission and German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the doors to anyone from the third world. In 2015, 1.5 million migrants entered Germany or about 2% of the population with whole communities and towns transformed overnight. The transnational/left sneers at the role of culture and tradition in the life of Western societies. They are compulsively anti-Western and anti-Christian and seek to replace their societies with others they can more readily control. The people resent this bitterly.

The reaction of the left, our cultural betters, over the result of the Brexit vote was,  “classic, bigoted, brain-free liberalism.  From the radicals in the media, government, academia, and elsewhere it meant only one thing: Hate. Or racism, or xenophobia, or intolerance, or nativism, or Islamophobia. No other reason explained the vote for our friends on the left, other than blind hatred. The response is simple. They are the bigots. They hate their own country, their national identity, their culture, religion, and history. They despise the white working class whom they seek to replace. In other words, they are Anglophobes, Christophobes, and anti-white racists.

Beyond the obvious failures of the EU, the tepid economic growth, the failed monetary policies, and the disastrous immigration crisis, the critical issue was national sovereignty and self-rule. The British exit vote, not unlike our own American Revolution, resolved for self-rule. For the British, it was their own popularly elected parliament over bureaucrats in Brussels. For us, it was our colonial legislatures over the British monarchy. In both cases, it was a fear of arbitrary despotic power in the hands of a remote governing authority that lacked accountability. The Brexit vote was a stirring defense of self-government, a rare and precious thing to be jealously guarded.

July-2016
Brief Bio: Richard Moss MD is a practicing Ear Nose and Throat Surgeon, author, and columnist who resides in Jasper IN. He recently lost his bid for the Republican nomination for Congress in Indiana’s 8th district. Find more of his essays and blog posts at exodusmd.com. Also find him on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.

By Richard Moss, MD

Brief Bio: Richard Moss MD is a practicing Ear Nose and Throat Surgeon, author, and columnist who resides in Jasper IN. He recently lost his bid for the Republican nomination for Congress in Indiana’s 8th district. Find more of his essays and blog posts at exodusmd.com. Also find him on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawywer.com

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a federal judge in Indianapolis should have excused herself from hearing a man’s petition regarding his sentence because she was the one who sentenced him while she was a judge in state court. In doing so, the federal appellate court overturned two lines of decisions.

Robertson Fowler pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm charge and a habitual offender enhancement in Marion Superior Court. He was sentenced to 30 years, 15 years for the possession offense and an extra 15 on account for his criminal history, by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. While his case was pending on appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a prior conviction used to establish status as a “serious violent felon” can’t also be used to establish status as a habitual offender.

Fowler’s appellate attorneys did not bring up Mills v. State, 868 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed, and later upheld the denial of post-conviction relief, noting that his plea agreement waived the benefit of Mills.

Fowler then filed a petition in federal court claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. That petition was heard by Magnus-Stinson, who moved to the federal bench, first as a magistrate judge in 2007, then as an Article III judge in 2010. She denied his petition for the same reasons as the COA.

The 7th Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Frank Easterbrook, focused on the procedural issue with Magnus-Stinson hearing the case. A federal judge is always disqualified from hearing a collateral attack on a judgment he or she entered or affirmed as a state judge, he wrote. She should have turned this proceeding over to another judge.

The case led the Circuit Court to look at United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1204-05 (7th Cir. 1985), which made a distinction between 28 U.S.C. sections 455(a) and (b). Based on Balistrieri, the 7th Circuit refuses to consider Section 455(a) arguments on appeal. That section says a judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned. Section 455(b) outlines other circumstances where a judge may disqualify himself, such as serving as a lawyer on the case previously or any kind of financial interest in the subject matter or party in the proceeding.

Easterbrook noted the 7th Circuit is the “odd circuit out,” and decided to overrule Balistrieri and its successors to the extent they hold that arguments under Section 455(a) cannot be raised on direct appeal.

The Circuit Court also overruled its line of cases in United States v. Ruzzano, 247 F.3d 688, 694 (7th Circ. 2001) and United States v. Johnson, 680 F.3d 966, 979 (7th Cir. 2012) to the extent that they forbid appellate review of judicial-disqualification issues in the absence of a motion in the District Court. Fowler did not file a motion in the federal court seeking to disqualify Magnus-Stinson. Easterbrook pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed litigants to seek disqualification despite the absence of a protest in the court where the disqualification judge sat. Cases from that court treat the participation of a disqualified judge as a form of structural error, which may be noticed at any time.

This opinion was circulated to all active judges on the 7th Circuit and none favored a hearing en banc. Robertson Fowler III v. Keith Butts, superintendent, New Castle Correctional Facility, 15-1221, is remanded for a decision by a different District judge.