Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 4 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

Entrenched dishonesty and disobedience to the Constitution by federal courts is, as you know, a MAJOR HOT BUTTON for me. However, I've spent decades taking with groups of lawmen about the Constitution and its application. I have no doubt that for the average voter, the Constitution is roughly 11th on a list of the top ten issues in any campaign.

So, I will not abandon this issue as long as I have life and breath. On the other hand, I will not attempt to win the voters' approval by flogging this issue at every possible opportunity to speak in public. You see the distinction, I hope.

John / Billybob

[george wythe]

Please ping me if you find a link to her complete speech.

At any rate, you did a good job in this article. It was a pleasure to read such clear writing.

[Reactionary]

You're exactly right about this.

O'Connor and others have now taken to formulating law based upon international public opinion. Their view is that what is just is what is commonly held to be just.

I guess it was inevitable that cultural relativism would devolve into conventionalism and then blind adherence to the "opinions" of mankind. The authoritarian nature of this undertaking escapes dunderheads like O'Connor.

[rebel25]

"All these calls to impeach are so pitiful."

Any judge even in the SCOTUS are not nobility. They can be impeached just as any appointed offical. She is not honoring her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. She should be removed. I am saddened by it though I thought she was one of the good ones.

[rebel25]

"All these calls to impeach are so pitiful."

Any judge even in the SCOTUS are not nobility. They can be impeached just as any appointed offical. She is not honoring her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. She should be removed. I am saddened by it though I thought she was one of the good ones.

[lilylangtree]

Impeach the witch and all those that would violate their oath--bunch of dirty rotten no-good scum that feeds at the public trough for their living.

[gunnedah]

Why do you think the Democrats are obstructing Bush's nominees? They are going to take over the US Supreme Court and it wont surprise me to see a dictator in America in this century. Laugh but at least think about it?

[fire_eye]

Justice O'Connor told her audience at the Southern Center, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

Oh, good. I'm deeply gratified.

That means we can count on Ms. O'Connor to cheerfully go along with (*just* for insatance) American political subdivisions enacting Nuremberg laws when the Muslims take over Europe and install antisemitic governments there?

Right, Sandra? I mean, at that point, antisemitism in the Untied States would become a domestic issue requiring Your Dishonor's august and venerable opinion to be based in the opinions of international and foreign courts... Right, Sandra??

I'm with the person who said she should be tried for sedition and treason. At the very least, an attempt should be launched to impeach the witch. That might at least have somewhat of a "Chilling Effect"... and make sitting up there on the bench trying to internationalize the United States not quite so much fun any more

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Impeachment is up to the US Senate. The US Senate's decision to impeach is NOT, as some legal fools would have us believe, subject to judicial review.

O'Connor's rantings are in an of themselves, grounds for impeachment. The US Senate right now is a "limp wrist", but I think things are slowly changing for the better. O'Connor's speach is an admission of guilt on her part. She has admitted that Supreme Court rulings have ALREADY been decided based upon "what they do in Europe" and not on the Constitution. That, my friends, is called usurping the Constitution and it is an impeachable offense. It only takes the US Senate to vote that it is an impeachable offense and the bimbo is out on her pompous a$$.

[tpaine]

Two threads on FreeRepublic have already mentioned this subject. Though there's more detail in my article because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.
Lemme know what you think.
1 -bb-

---

As I told you on the first thread, you are hyping the issue beyond reason.

The liberal judges on the USSC will be controled by our system of checks & balances between Fed & State power, ~if~ it is allowed to operate. Politically, this is not happening.

Demanding that states have the power to ignore our bill of rights in the writing of unreasonable regulations on such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws, --- is a violation of the lawyers oath to protect and defend, imo.. - Thus, it is part of the political problem.

Sure, the liberal justices are 'far out', but so are rabble-rousing 'states rightists'. They are just on opposite ends of the constitutional spectrum.

[Alberta's Child]

My simple opinion about this is that former Washington Redskins running back John Riggins must have been a very good judge of character.

[Ff--150]

Any judge even in the SCOTUS are not nobility. They can be impeached just as any appointed offical.

Hey, man,...pass some of that you're smokin' this way, I could use a hit, brother...

Whether you or anyone else believes this or not makes no less a truth. Hint: Google: the Missing 13th Amendment.

[mrsmith]

Well, you laid it out pretty clearly.

I don't think any other country even has the concept of rights being retained by the citizenry.
It's much easier for the court to define our rights than to inquire what rights we have retained.

[2timothy3.16]

Sad to think they will impeach for being a drunkard but not for treason. Do you think you can get the original speech, I would like to read it for myself.

Thanks

[nfldgirl]

Why do you think the Democrats are obstructing Bush's nominees? They are going to take over the US Supreme Court and it wont surprise me to see a dictator in America in this century. Laugh but at least think about it?

How about this decade?! Laugh?! Not me. It's so blatantly obvious that the enemies of America are working from "within" than from "without." What you have suggested is a very real possibility...maybe not in this decade, but truly in my life-time (currently 47).

[You Dirty Rats]

11th? I'm surprised it's that high.

For some reason, this latest "rationale" for overruling the Constitution (i.e. foreign opinion) bothers me more than any of the other dubious methods of subversion. Perhaps I just have a bias against Justices who want to reverse the Revolutionary War!

The idea of the EU and their institutions controlling our country just sickens me.

However, I am not too sure it's fair to refer to Justice O'Connor as "Sandra Dee". Upon series reflection, that airhead bimbo really does fall several steps lower on the intellectual food chain than Ms. Dee.

[nfldgirl]

It only takes the US Senate to vote that it is an impeachable offense and the bimbo is out on her pompous a$$.

Only that'll never happen because the power-grubbing, sleazy, slimy, greasy, wimpy scumbags in the U.S. Senate don't have the courage of conviction to do the right thing, on principle, no matter the cost. They should ALL be thrown out!

[You Dirty Rats]

I don't understand how a bunch of drunkards (i.e. the Senate) can impeach other drunkards (i.e. the judiciary). Then again, Ted voted along with Sam Nunn to deny John Tower SecDef under George H.W. Bush on the grounds he was too drunk to be SecDef, but not too drunk to be a Senator. Go Figure.

Given the choice between a drunkard who respect the Constitution and a sober traitor, I'll take the drunkard.

[tpaine]

It's much easier for the court to define our rights than to inquire what rights we have retained.
33 -mrs-

---

Actually, it's much easier to carp that the court is redefining 'states rights' to ignore our BOR's.

We should be inquiring why the rights we retain are being attacked..

[XJarhead]

Unfortunately, Dubya can't even use O'Connor's reliance on foreign law as a campaign issue because she's a stinkin' Republican appointee. It might have had some appeal to certain independents. At the least, it would have given Dubya a pretty good comeback when badgered by the Dems about Supreme Court appointments.

I suppose one tiny bright spot is that the Dems can't really use it either because they agree with the merits on that case.