Academia, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Lawyering

Turley To Speak At 2019 Judicial Conclave In New Mexico

Today I have the honor of delivering a keynote speech to the 2019 Judicial Conclave in New Mexico at the Hyatt Regency in Albuquerque. I will be discussing the history, cases, and evolution of the “cultural defense” in federal and state courts. The speech is at 11:15 am on Friday at the conference held at the Hyatt.

I often participate in a wonderful program headed by Judge Hon. Delissa A. Ridgway of U.S. Court of International Trade. Judge Ridgway has brought together jurists and lawyers from around the world to discuss difficult cultural issues that are increasingly appearing in criminal and civil cases.  This is not a reproduction of that program which puts judges and lawyers in the position of actual jurors own exploring various cases involving the cultural defense.

Courts still grapple with the question of when cultural values or practices are admissible in criminal and civil trials — and how much weight to give such arguments.

With its rich intermixing of cultures, these arguments have particular relevance to New Mexico.

9 thoughts on “Turley To Speak At 2019 Judicial Conclave In New Mexico”

  1. This whole farce is a sham perpetrated to the detriment of Ameirca and Americans by communists and communists-in-waiting. Get over it. Europeans and Americans won. You lost. I love the “cultural values or practices” in this contemporary incoherent and duplicitous construct: Native American. Denizens of North America, Indians, who arrived before Europeans were not native but Asiatic nomads. Not only are Indians NOT Americans, they are descendants of the mortal enemies of Americans. Indians don’t refer to themselves as Americans, they use tribal names such as Apache or Sioux. They don’t have a general label.

    Foreign invader hyphenates with “cultural values or practices” don’t come to America to assimilate, they come to profit. They come to America to acquire their fair share of payment and recompense from socially engineered, redistributing communists for “blame” by guilt-ridden, self-hating Americans who just can’t stand the fact that they won the battle of history. Emasculated America is open for business – the business of groveling, atoning and indemnifying history’s losers. Where’s George Armstrong Custer when you need him?

  2. Congrats. Hopefully, you’ll tell the assembled law trust that when you voluntarily enter America, you accept American culture including American law. Anything else is favoritism or paternalism. There is no cultural defense of a foreign culture’s norms. Soft-headed judges might allow it but its a glass slope leading to loathing of the rule of law by everyone not so favored — which is most everyone.

    1. Mespo, I agree completely, however, logically the carve out from laws the right is seeking under the name of religious freedom is opposite this principle. If the only defense against new arrivals seeking religious exemptions is “we don;t do it that way around here” I think you’d agree that is not exactly strong legal grounds. Strong legal grounds would be no carve outs for religious beliefs. Afterall, if one bases their actions on what they think a supernatural being demands of them, is that somehow more compelling than a logical argument about one’s actions?

      1. how much was your paycheck this pay period for trolling for Correct the Record?

      2. Anon:
        Yours is a valid point. I think to be consistent in the application of law you consider lex loci which includes even conflicting principles like freedom of religion and nondiscrimination. The interface can be rough but one doesn’t destroy the other. You balance American cultural interests. There are no interests to be weighed from other cultures unless they map onto our own.

    2. Foreign “…cultural values or practices…?”

      We don’t need no stinking foreign “…cultural values and practices!’

      Communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) have subjugated America, Americans and the U.S. Constitution. Foreigners other than “…free white person(s)…” were known to the American Founders to be “injurious” to America, the American Constitution and the American culture. With the Naturalization Act of 1802 in full force and effect in 1861, Abraham Lincoln drove the train off the tracks deriving from his compulsion to impose the communist principle of a “classless society” – a compulsion he obtained from Marxists who immigrated to Illinois from Germany to escape prosecution for insurrection.
      ____________________________________________________________

      “Through Korner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker, a lawyer from Mannheim who had served as a liberal legislator in the lower chamber of the Baden State Assembly before leading an April 1848 uprising in the region—an uprising cheered on by the newspaper Marx briefly edited during that turbulent period, Neue Rheinische Zeitung—Organ der Demokratie.
      …
      The failure of the 1848 revolts, and the brutal crackdowns that followed, led many leading European radicals to take refuge in the United States, and Lincoln’s circle of supporters would eventually include some of Karl Marx’s closest associates and intellectual sparring partners, including Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich.”

      – ISR https://isreview.org/issue/79/reading-karl-marx-abraham-lincoln
      ______________________________________________________

      “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?”

      “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

      – Thomas Jefferson
      ________________

      “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

      “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

      – Alexander Hamilton
      _________________

      “There is no particular need to encourage immigration except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.”

      “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

      – George Washington
      _________________

      Federal Naturalization Laws (1790, 1795, 1802).

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

      – American Founders, Within the Year of Adoption of the Constitution, Original Intent
      ___________________________________________________________________

      “…provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

      To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

      From John Jay

      New York 25 July 1787

      Dear Sir

      I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

      Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

      Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

      which sailed Yesterday.

      Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

      provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

      administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the

      american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

      Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

      Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

      I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

      John Jay

  3. Courts still grapple with the question of when cultural values or practices are admissible in criminal and civil trials — and how much weight to give such arguments.

    Honest judges might ‘grapple’ with them. Ordinary judges (often aided and abetted by shallow smart-assed clerks) will manufacture excuses to abuse cultural minorities which are unfashionable in their circle of friends and let it slide with those they fancy are their clientele contra the ordinary Americans they despise.

Comments are closed.