This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court just issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists. The opinion by Justice Todd W. Eddins is devoid of judicial restraint and decorum. The fact that other justices would join in such an unhinged screed is a disgrace to the court and the Hawaii bar.
The case itself raised an issue of the admissibility of evidence at a criminal trial, which the court found denied the defendant a fair trial due to later scientific developments. The issue raises some interesting questions of the standard that applies to such challenges. (While unanimously vacating the conviction, the court actually divided 3-2 over the standard).
The majority ruled that the false-evidence standard applied under the state constitution when prosecutors knowingly present untrue testimony, holding that all that is required is that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the challenged evidence influenced the vote of any juror.
Reasonable minds can disagree on that standard, but the opinion suddenly veers off into a completely gratuitous and irrelevant attack on the integrity of the United States Supreme Court.
Equally troubling is that legal pundits like Mark Stern (who covers the Supreme Court for Slate) have heralded Eddins as “the one judge who has the guts” to denounce the Court.
Eddins writes a chest-thumping diatribe about how his court “takes no instruction” from the “hubristic originalists” on the Supreme Court. Of course, it has been 210 years since Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) held that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court rulings. It has been roughly 170 years since the Court ruled in Ableman v. Booth (1858) that state courts cannot overrule or obstruct judgments of the federal courts.
Justice Eddins and his colleagues are not declaring a judicial insurrection but rather a form of passive aggression, a pledge to minimize any orders from a Court described as “driven by agenda and intent on swiping power that belongs to the people.”
He was asserting the separate authority under the state constitution to render opposing opinions, presumably when those decisions do not contravene federal rights. Eddins asserted that the majority of justices “systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity.” He proclaimed that their attack on democracy itself “does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution.”
Unlike the Supreme Court, Eddins declares that his court will “follow principles, not agendas” and take “no guidance” from “the Supreme Court’s imperious ideology.” He included broadsides against the Supreme Court barring racial gerrymandering and other forms of racial discrimination, including a disgraceful claim that “The Roberts Court sees only white.”
In rejecting what he claims as his colleagues seeking to apply a standard imported from the demonized Supreme Court, Eddins dramatically declared that this court “needs no part of this. The Hawaiʻi Constitution was built to stand on its own. And so it does.”
It was the most substantive declaration since Sen Cory Booker’s “I am Spartacus” moment. The Hawaii Supreme Court will not truly stand on its own. It is part of a constitutional system that requires adherence to binding precedent, even rulings that Eddins finds obnoxious. Obviously, the state can impose its own constitutional values so long as it does not contravene federal rights and jurisdiction, which are quite broad. The rest comes off as using a judicial opinion to virtue signal.
For some of us who value federalism, there is no question that state courts have the authority to protect state constitutional values that do not violate the federal Constitution. Ironically, it is the conservative majority that is most likely to defend that state authority. However, Eddins could have made that point without the vituperative and injudicious attack on his federal counterparts who hold different jurisprudential views.
Notably, Eddins cited Justice Jackson as the model of true fealty to the law. He is not the first state supreme court justice to do so, as discussed earlier in a case from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from conservative and liberal colleagues.
These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.
Nevertheless, pundits like Stern are lionizing Eddins for his pledge to use his court to resist: “When state judges refuse to carry that project any further than federal law requires, the machinery of judicial supremacy begins to jam. Eddins has shown his colleagues exactly where to stick the wrench.”
Nothing says judicial restraint like a good wrench throwing.
It is not even the Calvinball jurisprudence of Justice Jackson. Justice Eddins reduces our judiciary to the level of Rip Torn’s Dodgeball:
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Dobbs was a conspicuous example an activist Supreme Court majority aligning with Plaintiffs advancing a political policy “cause” opposed by the majority of Americans. These cases are put forth policy-as-injury. We saw this recently again with the Barbara debacle.
Activists on the left use these pretextual injury cases much more often than the right, but to me, they are equally odious in the arrogance of the elitist lawyers who are using the Courts as an alternate legislature (one where the Judges never have to face an election) — and public majority opposition to their cause is no obstacle.
If Justice Alito had objectively researched the history of abortificient usage in the colonies and early Republic, he would have had to conclude that abortion was among the constellation of non-enumerated rights widely practiced and taken for granted in 1790 under the 9th Amendment.
Similarly, if Chief Justice Roberts had studied the first 109 years of practice of the 1790 Nationality Act (the way it specifies children of immigrants become US Citizens by Derivation), he would have concluded that the 14th Amendment did not intend to change that law.
He would have upheld the need for babies born to immigrants await their parents’ Naturalization to become US Citizens.
What makes these 2 cases disgraceful is the highly-selective analysis of legal history used to justify an unpopular policy change.
What’s the big deal? In their dissents, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson have pretty much said the same thing.
THERE IS NO OTHER TOPIC
Eddins is obviously auditioning for one of the 5 new spots on SCOTUS that he hopes the Democrats will create. Come to think of it, the Democrats could appoint all 5 Hawaii Supreme Court justices to fill the new spots and be certain of the results.
IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR DAVID TO OUTFOX GOLIATH
Velicovich said what worries him personally is the “unpredictability” of these drone capabilities, “not only from Iran, but other hostile nations like China and Russia,” whose drone programs are all outpacing those in the US.
The areas that concern military planners most are not necessarily traditional tanks or fighter jets, but rather drones, ballistic and cruise missiles, electronic warfare, cyber operations and increasingly sophisticated command-and-control networks,” he said.
OFF TOPIC POST AS USUAL FOR ANON!!
😂 as if a billionaires money had any effect on the mundane lives of ordinary people. 😂 when was the last time a billionaire came to dinner or you had lunch or were anywhere near a billionaire? Remove their existence from your mind. How does it effect anything at all? I guess they may cause an impact in interest rates or inflation or dollars in circulation but I doubt it. Are you an employee of a billionaire? I suppose walmart Inc has employees but anyone is free to join the stock??? I don’t get the obsession.
Move the 1% to another nation. Let them pack up. Now we can pay the additional 49% taxes. That’s justice. Money is tied to buildings and operations as capital is invested. The public employees pension funds are invested so that’ll bankrupt. What else do these geniuses have in mind? What’s causing the inflation? Imports but the tariffs were evil, you said. Gouging, dishonesty is inflation. What’s to do about that?
Geniuses, explain inflation as we see it currently. Come on x. Give it a go. What does Google say?
That’s the plot of an excellent Ayn Rand novel. I really liked ‘The Fountainhead’ too.
Because so much of their tiny lives are tied up in confusing ‘money’ issues, these dolts simply think it would be simpler for them if money didn’t exist. math is hard.
Of course you cannot stop free trade, it’s existed since the first human-human interactions and it’s certainly a good example of natural law.
Communist countries called free trade the “black market” in order to dissuade that natural human freedom but had to allow it to prevent revolt.
Is our whole problem in this country just boil down to some people don’t understand a thing about how a free market works?
Did you eat today? use a computer? of course you did. that’s because all the people richer than you are smart enough to have figured out what you WANT and they put there money towards that goal of satisfying you and guess what, you really liked eating today and are going to come back tomorrow and buy more.
Would you be happier if tomorrow if all these richer-than-YOU decided that they legally could deny selling you what everyone else can buy? Isn’t that the same sort of denial you are insisting to those simply better-off-because-they’re-smarter-than-you?
By the way, you might want to analyze yourself under your own pitiful lens; If rich is bad and you are richer than 99% of the rest of the humans (you are!) who lesser than you are you crushing because of your desires? Do you wear sneakers made in a overseas sweatshop? Are you a ‘capitalist pig’ now? Does envy turn people into commies? I don’t understand how so many people can be this stupid. This is America, If you want something, go get it. No where else does it work this way so efficiently.
“as if a billionaires money had any effect on the mundane lives of ordinary people.”
The “ordinary people” whose lives are made better by Walmart and Starlink could not be reached for comment.
We’re in a time that social psychologists are referring to as a “mass hysteria” on the Left. Our counter-culture group of the Vietnam War era has grown to include a large segment of today’s liberal Democrats. What was “I smoke dope and I hate America”, an edgy, “look-at-me” mannerism, has morphed into a mindless rage against the United States. The Democrats want to dismantle the very society that allowed, through lack of discipline, them to grow into positions of power. Probably the only way to counter this attempted coup by the Democrats is to respond harshly, and in-kind … only when it comes back to haunt will they pay attention.
It’s older than Vietnam. The communist go back to Marx and the Communist Revolution in Russia that produced the USSR. The Communist will never quit working for world dominion. Vietnam just up the fight. The communist globalist will ever rest, and will never give up.
Look at me! I wear a MAGA hat, have 35 Trump stickers on my lifted bro truck, and buy Bud Light just to shoot it with a gun to represent shooting people I don’t like. Join me for a masked rally where I am proud to show minorities what it looks like to jump from the backs of unmarked rental trucks or carry torches and threaten Jewish people with Nazi chants.
This is American conservatism where members of the Trump administration are not allowed to say “Joe Biden won in 2020.” They will dance around that topic like performers in a Broadway musical because if the Eye of Sore Loser turns to them and sees they said that simple phrase, they will be tossed from the battlements to the political rocks below.
haha sore loser. get used to the left losing big time
BRETT VELICOVICH KNOWS TERROR AND DRONES
Iran could use drones to make a deadly strike on California at any time, a top US Army expert says — and we’re nowhere near ready for what could happen.
The FBI issued an urgent warning to cops across the Golden State of a potential Iranian drone strike, an alert that surfaced on Wednesday read.
The bureau’s alert said: “We recently acquired information that as of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United State Homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California, in the event that the US conducted strikes against Iran.”
Iranian forces have the technology, the ability and the motivation to launch withering drone attacks on targets in California, according to Brett Velicovich, a former US Army intelligence and special operations soldier who spent years using drones to hunt and kill the leaders of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
AIN’T NOBODY LISTENIN
BRETT VELICOVICH KNOWS BEST
HE AIN’T MESSIN
DRONES R COMIN
NOBODY BE LISTENIN
WOK AND TRUMPERS BOTH DEAF AS DOORNAILS
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Why don’t Bernie Sanders, Alhysteria O’Crazio Corkheads, the DSA, and the communists ply their trade down in Mexico or South America?
Because there are no billionaires and trillionaires down there.
The one thing the communists demand consistently is other people’s money, and the United States of America is the place for that.
Ano
Because there are no billionaires and trillionaires down there.
______________________________
I think the drug lords are giving them a run for the money. But most of there money is in cash.
Achtually, the problem occurs when officials decide to become corrupt criminals and make personal profits off a countrie’s resources. With all that money, they no longer need the support of the people and so they are expendable. Venezeala, russia, Iran, are all examples of the power coming from the countries wealth turned against the people. This is how important fair elections are! Tyranny vs. Freedom.