Let's Work Together to End Judicial Tyranny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richardols:
Yeah, and our country would still be segregated. Conservatives wanted to impeach Earl Warren after Brown v Board of Ed. and were outraged by that decision.
Click to expand...
Umm. The Supreme Court making a bad and immoral decision was a big contributing factor to the civil war. Why do you think it isn’t best to address immoral decisions by courts in a rational and timely manner now rather than lead to a far worse situation?
 
40.png
ansel123:
What do you think the role of the judiciary is? Not necessarily a oligarchy, but definitely a check to popular will.

The drafters of the Constitution did not entirely trust popular will. After the Revolution, the country fell prey to mobocracy and legislatures devolved into faction. The Constitution was response to this mobocracy, increasing the power of the executive and the judiciary to moderate and balance the popular will.
Click to expand...
Correct. I’m not saying the branch itself establishes oligarchy. I am saying that unchecked judges acting outside the scope of their authority effectively creates an oligarchy.
40.png
ansel123:
The Founders did not draft a Constitution that gives ulimate power to elected bodies. The idea of the legislature voting by super-majority to overturn constitutionally-based judicial decisions is frightening. You should really think about what you are trying to mess with. Changing the structure of our government is dangerous. Its a complex system of checks and balances and disrupting it can have unforeseen consequences. If you want substantive change, seek substantive change. Don’t undermine our entire system of government.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say the legislature. I said the people. Remember, a law passing in the House and the Senate has been deliberated. The president approves of it. If, say 2/3 or 5/7 of the American people still think the law should be in place, even after respectable judges rule the law out, I think that is quite reasonable and could hardly be called mobocracy.
40.png
ansel123:
And you might respond that there is no check on the judiciary. I would ask you to pick up a copy of the Constitution. Judges are appointed by the Executive with the advice and consent of the Legislature. The judiciary has no power to raise an army or money and thus depends on the other branches to enforce its decisions - this obviously serves as a moderating check on their decisions.
Click to expand...
There are moderating checks that are not happening. For the Legislature and Executive to act on these checks could very well be a solution to the problem. I’m not saying there is only one possible solution but there needs to be a solution to the current crisis.
40.png
ansel123:
Again, its very dangerous to alter the structure and process of our govenrment to achieve substantive ends. There are other ways to go about seeking the results we want.
Click to expand...
The process of our government has been substantially changed by the overreaching of the judiciary and the inaction of the other branches. I’d prefer not having to structurally change any processes, although an unelected lifetime federal judiciary may not have been the best idea. Term limits and elections should be considered. We cannot assume a judge is good for life.
 
40.png
ansel123:
Your understanding is skewed and tailored not to the historical context (Federalist papers as political writings which are source material, but NOT binding on how we interpret the Constitution) but to your own substantive goals. You are engaging in a dangerous game with untold consequences. And you are seemingly advocating a states’ rights understanding of resolving Constitutional conflict, which was utterly discredited with alot of American blood in the Civil War.
Click to expand...
The “dangerous game” is already being played out except that it is not a game. You seem to underestimate the damage that some judges have inflicted on this country. We have untold deaths. We have new ways to accept death. We have immorality being legalized. We have protection of criminal higher than protection of victim. We have a very strong socialist bent within academia, which in turn is reflected in large portions of the judiciary. You cannot throw up your hands and say ANY proposed change to this mess is too dangerous. It is only because of the real danger and damage that we are calling for change.
40.png
ansel123:
If you want substantive results, seek substantive solutions. The courts have no armies, they can’t raise their own funds, and any case can be overruled by either constitutional amendment or a new statute (depending on what source is at issue). They are appointed by the Executive with the cooperation of the Legislaturs. So how dangerous? It is their job to provide a check on the popular will. I urge you not to disturb this. Our previous experience with mobocracy didn’t turn out very well.
Click to expand...
I addressed this above.
 
40.png
ansel123:
It is their job to provide a check on the popular will. I urge you not to disturb this.
Click to expand...
I agree. The right-wing zealots who believe that removing judges who don’t agree with them is the solution to our societal woes don’t seem to understand that the executive/legislative/judicial system of checks and balances is vital to prevent mobocracy.

Brad is undoubtedly sincere in his crusade, but it is a crusade that I cannot lend any support to, given the consequences I think will occur with a descent into rule by legislature alone.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Brad is undoubtedly sincere in his crusade, but it is a crusade that I cannot lend any support to, given the consequences I think will occur with a descent into rule by legislature alone.
Click to expand...
You haven’t read the posts very carefully as that is not my intention nor a possible end result of anything proposed here. In fact, I fear that is a purposefuly inaccurate representation on my aims in an effort to not change anything, from stopping the filibuster of voting on judges, to possible impeachment proceedings, to restrictions on constitutional review - all constituionally viable options. I have never proposed a one and only soultion. You are opposing every solution.
 
40.png
Brad:
You haven’t read the posts very carefully as that is not my intention nor a possible end result of anything proposed here. In fact, I fear that is a purposefuly inaccurate representation on my aims in an effort to not change anything, from stopping the filibuster of voting on judges, to possible impeachment proceedings, to restrictions on constitutional review - all constituionally viable options. I have never proposed a one and only soultion. You are opposing every solution.
Click to expand...
Regardless what “solution(s)” you want to use, howsoever legal and “constitutional,” I see no need to change the present system.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Regardless what “solution(s)” you want to use, howsoever legal and “constitutional,” I see no need to change the present system.
Click to expand...
That’s what it appeared to me. Apparently you think legalized abortion, euthansia, homosexual marriage, and condemnation of children who pray in school to be a-ok. I don’t. My God has higher laws and I’d like to live in a society that reflects a little more of His mind.
 
**There’s Still Time to Help
End Judicial Filibusters **

News reports indicate it could be just a matter of days until an attempt is made by the Senate’s Republican leadership to enact the “constitutional option” to end judicial filibusters.

The plan – to restore Senate tradition by once again making 51 votes sufficient to confirm a nominee to the federal bench – is staunchly opposed by the same Democrats who have abused filibusters for the past four years to block some of President Bush’s appeals court nominees. This obstructionism, unprecedented in U.S. history, is being carried out by liberals simply because they don’t want men and women who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution to be confirmed.

What kind of judges do the liberals want? Those like the ones who allowed Terri Schiavo to be starved and dehydrated to death. Those like the ones who don’t believe it should be illegal for abortionists to suck the brains out of nearly delivered children. Those who have ruled to overturn the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Those who believe pornography showing women being raped, mutilated and defecated upon is protected by the First Amendment – but the Ten Commandments are not.

Please take a moment to contact your two U.S. senators to express your support for the “constitutional option.” For contact information visit the CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.

It is particularly important for you to make your views known if you are represented by any of the senators listed below, who have been identified by family advocates as key to the enactment of the constitutional option. You can find contact information for them – including their Washington and district offices, by clicking on their names.

Alaska
Sen. Lisa Murkowski

New Hampshire
Sen. John Sununu

Maine
Sen. Susan Collins
Sen. Olympia Snowe

Virginia
Sen. John Warner

Nebraska
Sen. Chuck Hagel
 
Falwell Confidential

Insider weekly newsletter to The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance

moralmajority.us

From: Jerry Falwell

Date: June 23, 2005

DEMOCRATS ON THE WARPATH OVER FUTURE COURT NOMINEES

It is likely that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist will announce that he is stepping down from the Court during the days to come. Mr. Rehnquist, who has experienced recent health problems, has been an exceptional jurist who will long be revered by conservatives.

With his impending retirement, panic-stricken Senate Democrats are frantically calling on President Bush to consult with them regarding his replacement and on other judicial nominees.

Do these senators forget that President Bush won the November elections with a stated platform that he would choose conservative jurists who do not legislate from the bench? The American people elected President Bush with the clear comprehension that he would nominate to the court those men and women who reflect his values.

The desperate Democrats are now whining that the constitutional provision of “advise and consent” means that the Senate must be involved in the judicial nomination process.

But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) noted on the Senate floor today (Thursday) that the Constitution clearly states that the president shall be the one to nominate justices. They pointed out that President George Washington did not consult with the Senate on his judicial nominees, under the instruction of James Madison and other Framers.

The Democrats have, in typical fashion, attempted to rewrite history, apparently with the hope that the MTV Generation will not grasp what they’re doing.

So we can get ready for a further frenzied assault on President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee(s) and future federal court nominees.

Sen. Cornyn chastised Bush opponents for the aggressively disrespectful manner in which they have gone to war against the president’s judicial nominees. He observed that during the Senate confirmation process of Justice David Souter, he was bitterly opposed by liberals. Yet today he is considered one of the more liberal jurists on the Court.

The point here is that the left’s angry rhetoric is often empty and hysterical, and is designed to placate radical abortion-rights and homosexual-rights advocates who buttress the party. I often wonder how their supporters take them seriously.

TEN COMMANDMENTS DECISION DRAWING NEAR

As this judicial firestorm continues, it appears that the High Court will release its Ten Commandments decision next Monday, June 27. The Ten Commandments cases include McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry.

These cases clearly show why it is so important that President Bush makes his mark on our federal courts and the Supreme Court.

Our religious freedoms are quite literally at stake.

Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, argued the McCreary County case earlier this year before the High Court and filed amicus briefs in the Van Orden case before the federal district and appellate courts.

He said, “We are eagerly anticipating a decision by the Supreme Court on the Ten Commandments. There are more than 50 depictions of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court where I argued in defense of displaying the Commandments. The Ten Commandments are deeply rooted in American law and culture.”

PRAY FOR THE PRESIDENT

This is a pivotal time for our nation. We are approaching a crossroads that could distinguish our judicial landscape (and ultimately determine the fate of our religious freedoms).

I urge readers to join me in fervently praying for President Bush at this time. I am ardently beseeching God to grant our president great wisdom and discernment as he chooses those individuals who will make up the framework of our nation’s judicial system over the next generation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top