March for Justice goes much deeper than activist judges

The March for Justice goes much deeper than activist judges - protections against corruption are also essential for liberty.

The problems of the judiciary go well beyond:
1) activist judges who create rulings out of thin air and
2) filibusters to block judicial nominees.

There is also a concerted effort to not enforce existing constitutional rights (see Clint Bolick’s good summary at http://www.hooverdigest.org/021/bolick.html ). As Bolick notes: “the more subtle type of judicial activism is where courts decline to protect rights that are expressly protected by the Constitution. This species of judicial activism is even more pernicious than the first because the federal courts are entrusted in our democracy with the responsibility of protecting fundamental individual rights against encroachments by other branches of government. Where the courts abdicate that responsibility, liberty is endangered.”

But there is a fourth aspect to this debate which gets virtually no attention: the widespread corruption in our judiciary. This can take the form of Judge Greer in Pinellas County taking campaign contributions from Michael Schiavo’s various attorneys to Connecticut’s Governor Rowland being given a shockingly light prison sentence as part of the continuing effort to cover up that state’s massive culture of political corruption. Outright corruption poses an equally grave threat to our freedoms, and is now widespread at all levels of the judiciary.

Life, liberty and then property are (in descending order) the three legs of the tripod supporting the carefully-crafted protections in the Constitution. But the order of these three inalienable rights is reversed in the efforts to force us back into tyranny. First our property rights are whittled away, then our liberty and finally our lives. Terri Schiavo’s murder has its genesis decades earlier in the cavalier treatment of basic property and commerce rights. The Founders knew government would frequently end up in corrupt hands, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. The primary reason it exists is because of this assumption that crooked individuals would end up in power. Or as Madison put it:

This gets back to Bolick’s point above, that failure to enforce existing rights is more destructive to our liberties than creating new rights.

We have created a new web site dedicated to countering the omission of corruption from this debate. Use it as a resource to obtain the truth regarding the major property rights case the U.S. Supreme Court is now deliberating, how a corrupt judiciary conspired to murder Terri Schiavo, and the endemic corruption which now saturates too many of our courts and legislatures. Visit www.CottageCoalition.org to learn more.

As Wikipedia puts it, political corruption includes “institutionalized bribery and beyond. The end-point of political corruption is kleptocracy, literally rule by thieves, where even the external pretense of honesty is abandoned.” As you know, this is sadly the case far too often today.

this may be in the wrong place, but is it true that marbury vs. madison and judicial review was part of a conspicracy within the federalist party so that they could still "retain" power through the judiciary after losing the election of 1800, where they tried to bribe both burr and jeferson and adams purposely left that last appointment behind? and that jefferson did not want his headstone to say that he was the president of the u.s.?

and why didnt jefferson stop the supreme court from assuming "judicial review" after all, it went against his whole beliefs that the federal government should not be too powerful?

No, this is the right place because Marbury v. Madison is where it all starts and the mess we are now in was inevitable. Jefferson would not be surprised in the least. Once the judicial review genie was released, there was no turning back.

While not knowledgeable enough to comment on the history you laid out, I think I can answer your final question - why Jefferson did not stop judicial review. I think the answer is the same reason Jeb Bush blinked when he had the Florida state police en route to seize Terri Schiavo but found out that the county cops would likely get into a showdown with them. In our individual and political lives, we all have to weigh the points at which we are going to act or not act. This gets to the heart of the checks & balances behind our government. If the executive (which controls the guys with the guns) chooses to ignore edicts of the judiciary or the legislature, democracy ends and tyranny begins. The whole system exists thanks to unwritten rules of behavior on the part of the three branches. I would argue (and I think most of us would concur) that the judiciary just trashed their unwritten side of the bargain in the Schiavo case. Did this mean Jeb Bush should have then abrogated his end of the compact, or should he and we work through the electoral process to rectify this mess? Limbaugh made a great point today: unlike the Democrats, he never has tried to attack anyone, tear them down and destroy them. His sole concern is to effect change at the ballot box. This view requires a political maturity and patience, but is, in the end, the only way to create real reform. I'm not sure I even have much of a problem with judicial review, so long as the right judges are doing the reviewing. Who should do this if not the judiciary? If we don't like the way the judiciary has ruled, the political process provides us a way to elect a legislature which will overturn rotten court decisions. By definition, the judiciary can not drift too far from the center where most of the populace is, and when it does an almost automatic self-correcting mechanism will kick in to rectify this eventually.

I firmly believe we are at the cusp of a movement which will roll back most of the judicial abuses of recent decades, and the Schiavo case, more than any other, was the last straw for a lot of people. There will likely never be another Ginsburg or Breyer appointed to the Supreme Court, and I am sure the pendulum has begun to swing back the other way.
http://www.CottageCoalition.org

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

"Round up the usual suspects!"