Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's Time to Rebuke the Judicial Oligarchy
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Nov 26, 2003 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 11/26/2003 7:19:37 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe

Will Massachusetts, the cradle of American liberty, let four lawyers don the robes of oligarchy, override the wishes of the majority of the people, usurp the powers of their elected representatives, and sabotage the institution of marriage? Where is the fight that manifested itself in Massachusetts men at the battles of Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord?

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-to-3 to legalize same-sex marriages. With elitist arrogance, the four-person majority bragged: "Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries."

Indeed, it does. Traditional marriage of husband and wife is fortified by a network of legal rights and duties spelled out in over a thousand federal and 400 state laws. The four judges gave the governor and the legislature 180 days to overturn nearly 400 years of Massachusetts history.

Those judges had no authority to change the definition of marriage. They contemplated their navels and convinced themselves that they alone could change social policy and make new law, and even contemptuously opined that belief in traditional marriage is without a "rational basis."

The people of Massachusetts should tell the judges to stuff their arrogance. "We the people" should rise up and say we are not going to kowtow to judicial tyranny.

Regrettably, the response by Massachusetts public officials has been pusillanimous. They are groveling before the four judges, wiggling around in the hope the court might be appeased by a parallel system of civil unions.

Governor Mitt Romney is trying to walk a tight rope of compromise. While supporting a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, he said: "We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it," and we need to decide "what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law."

But what "law"? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages. The judges enunciated only special-interest advocacy masquerading as legal reasoning.

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly said the judges overstepped in trying to shape social policy, but he wants to test an alternative solution and then seek "an advisory opinion of the court." Au contraire; we don't want any more advice from those judges.

State Representative Philip Travis, the lead sponsor of an amendment to preserve the definition of marriage, has the right response. He said that if the legislature doesn't act within the 180 days, the court can't force clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

"When we pass 180 days, what are you going to do to the Legislature?" said Travis. "With all due respect to the Supreme Court . . . you've given us a decision and given it to us to enforce. Therefore, if we don't enforce it, there is no remedy under the law of Massachusetts."

This Massachusetts court decision isn't just about same-sex marriage. It has posed the question whether Americans are willing to submit to what Thomas Jefferson predicted would be "the despotism of an oligarchy" if judges are allowed to be "the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions."

All over the nation, special-interest advocacy groups are "forum shopping" to find friendly judges willing to bypass the Constitution and write their own social and sexual preferences into the law. Plaintiffs are seeking out judges who are willing to cooperate in deconstructing our culture by abolishing the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments to make the nation comfortable for atheists, and to abolish marriage requirements to make the nation comfortable for unrestricted sex.

Gay rights activists have a nationwide strategy to make same-sex marriage a constitutional right. The legal advocacy firm called Freedom to Marry is joined in this effort by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Human Rights Watch.

They plan to accomplish in the courts what they cannot win in elected legislatures. The gay lawyers will litigate to get other state courts to use Massachusetts as a model, and the gays who marry in Massachusetts will seek legal recognition in other states, challenging their marriage laws and state Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA).

The same-sex-marriage activists know that the legal profession is predisposed to redefine marriage. The dissenting justices in Lawrence v. Texas warned that the Supreme Court is imbued with the "law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture."

The dissenting judges in the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case laid it on the line: "What is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individual rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts. ... The power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."

Massachusetts citizens should slap down their high court as the citizens of Hawaii and Alaska did when confronted with the same judicial impudence, and a nationwide backlash against judicial activism should start to roll.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: blackrobedtyrants; catholiclist; goodridge; judicialtyranny; phyllisschlafly

1 posted on 11/26/2003 7:19:37 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Bump.
2 posted on 11/26/2003 7:25:07 PM PST by First_Salute (God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
3 posted on 11/26/2003 7:35:16 PM PST by MrFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Looks like history is repeating itself.


4 posted on 11/26/2003 7:37:50 PM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The legislature should pass a law explicitly allowing a gay man to marry a gay woman. Problem solved.
5 posted on 11/26/2003 7:40:50 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Bimp
6 posted on 11/26/2003 7:52:15 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
... It's Time to Rebuke the Judicial Oligarchy ...
Ok. I'll give it a shot.

I REBUKE THEE, THOU MOST FOUL JUDICIAL OLIGARCHY, THOU BLACK-ROBED BLACKGUARDS, THOU HIDEOUSLY BE-WHIGGED PERCHERS UPON BENCHES. HANG THY HEADS IN THE HEAT OF THY SHAME, THOU WHO NOW STANDS SORELY REBUKED.

Next I shall be forced to raise my eyebrow in stern reproof. Do not make me raise my eyebrow.
7 posted on 11/26/2003 8:01:00 PM PST by Asclepius (karma vigilante)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
ping
8 posted on 11/26/2003 8:06:51 PM PST by thoughtomator ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Dang, that was harsh! did you get that from Orrin Hatch by any chance? :-)

9 posted on 11/26/2003 8:07:01 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Would this work?

Could a married couple in Massachusetts bring suit in federal court seeking equality of their married status with residents of other states? Their marital status certainly seems to have lost value.
10 posted on 11/26/2003 8:12:14 PM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius; Ff--150
ROTF - I suggest we all "rebuke" them. I know it works. But do we have to put them on double-secret probation first?
11 posted on 11/26/2003 8:15:54 PM PST by 4CJ ('Scots vie 4 tavern juices' - anagram by paulklenk, 22 Nov 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Bump for Mrs Schlafly!

Would like to see Romney taking a more active role in leading an effort to tell these judges to go to he**, for lack of a better description.
12 posted on 11/26/2003 8:16:42 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Ping.
13 posted on 11/26/2003 8:19:27 PM PST by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Will Massachusetts, the cradle of American liberty, let four lawyers don the robes of oligarchy, override the wishes of the majority of the people, usurp the powers of their elected representatives, and sabotage the institution of marriage?

Yes.

A far more relevant question is what the rest of us will do about it.

14 posted on 11/26/2003 8:23:35 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; Rummyfan; First_Salute; Asclepius; thoughtomator; WOSG; MainFrame65; ...
Massachusetts citizens should slap down their high court as the citizens of Hawaii and Alaska did when confronted with the same judicial impudence. -Phyllis Schlafly

Eh? I didn't know about that. Tell me more.

15 posted on 11/26/2003 8:25:14 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Will Massachusetts, the cradle of American liberty, let four lawyers don the robes of oligarchy, override the wishes of the majority of the people, usurp the powers of their elected representatives, and sabotage the institution of marriage?

Not without some fuss, believe you me. We are hammering our reps in the legislature. They feel the heat. Mine advised me to write of my displeasure to the SJC Clerk. I shall do that with relish.

16 posted on 11/26/2003 8:28:56 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Vexation without participation is tyranny. Impeach a few judges for no reason other than that the legislature is entitled to do so and the courts will revert to normal.
17 posted on 11/26/2003 8:29:44 PM PST by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
This court gave the legislature 180 days to pass a law that ratifies their ruling. Now that is arrogant even by New England standards.

Maybe I am missing the point but if the legislature is unable to agree on such a law, or if Mitt Romney vetoes their legislative effort, what does the court do?
18 posted on 11/26/2003 8:31:04 PM PST by edger (he)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edger
They will advise the cities and towns to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
19 posted on 11/26/2003 8:32:42 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
I have read (no idea whether accurate) that 50% of MA voters approve of the court's decision. Since a large majority the other way is needed for any of the over-turning approaches, looks like it will stand.
20 posted on 11/26/2003 8:40:56 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Eh? I didn't know about that. Tell me more.

The voters of Hawaii & Alaska added constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriages when their state supreme courts ruled otherwise. In Hawaii § 23: 'The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. ' In Alaska it was § 1.25, 'To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.'

21 posted on 11/26/2003 8:45:17 PM PST by 4CJ ('Scots vie 4 tavern juices' - anagram by paulklenk, 22 Nov 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
The 50% is not to be trusted. It is from a biased poll by the ultra-liberal Boston Globe.

Even so, yes, everyone assumes it will stand. All I am saying is that I think there will be some sparks flying before it's over.

22 posted on 11/26/2003 8:48:12 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Advise? And then what?
23 posted on 11/26/2003 8:55:32 PM PST by edger (he)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"We the people" should rise up and say we are not going to kowtow to judicial tyranny.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, and not just for this particular issue.

24 posted on 11/26/2003 8:56:22 PM PST by arasina (CHRISTMAS! [just try and take my tag line away, Bloomberg])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Here's the nature of the problem as I see it...

The voters of Hawaii and Alaska added constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage, but they didn't demand that their legislators kick out the rotten damn judges who perpetrated this travesty to begin with. That's the problem.

The only recourse allowed to the people in our system of government for the problem of a tyrannical and charlatan judiciary is for the legislatures to impeach them out of office. Why isn't this practice being implemented?

I suspect because most legislators today are attorneys, just like the judges are attorneys. They're all members of the same club.

Ultimately, its the classic problem; that is, "the people get the kind of government they deserve".
25 posted on 11/26/2003 8:58:05 PM PST by vanmorrison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
What I would like to see is a legislature with almost an entirely new membership elected by outraged voters. The legislature than impeaches the offending judges.

But it ain't gonna happen.
26 posted on 11/26/2003 8:59:21 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vanmorrison
The only recourse allowed to the people in our system of government for the problem of a tyrannical and charlatan judiciary is for the legislatures to impeach them out of office.

Since this decision by the SJC of my state, I have felt like I was kicked in the gut: the same way I felt right after 9/11/2001. There is going to be a judicial 9/11 to awaken the sleeping giant. This just ain't it yet.

I predict impeachments of runaway courts will start happening within five years.

27 posted on 11/26/2003 9:08:45 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it," and we need to decide "what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law."

Judges don't make law.

These activist judges are no more than evil buffoons. If people don't start curbing their power, the handbaskets we are in will have come to their (hot) destination.

28 posted on 11/26/2003 9:21:15 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Well,if this latest judicial fiasco isn't enough to energize the voters of Massachusetts, then nothing will.

But then, we're talking about the land of Ted Kennedy and Barney Fag ... uh, Frank. What do you expect.
29 posted on 11/26/2003 9:37:52 PM PST by vanmorrison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
tailgunner Joe,

Here is one answer to the challenge of the imperial Judiciary.



Judicial Powers Act

Whereas, Article III section 2, gives the Congress power to make exceptions
and regulations of the apellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
this act is enacted to ensure the proper role of the Judicial branch of
Government respecting both the relative powers of the branches and the
Federalist construct of the United States.

Just as the 'common law' was regularized by civil law, giving greater certainty
to the law in the process thereby assuring equal rights under the law and a better
code of justice, so too the regulation of judicial interpretation of the laws and
the Constitution is required to bring greater security, evenness, Constitutionality
and adherence to the rule of law, in the cases brought before Federal court.

Justification:
By placing into statutory law those salutory guides and commands as to the appropriate
judicial power, appropriate judicial action, and appropriate judicial interpretation
of the laws and of the Constitution, this law assures that citizens will be assured
of a surer and more just result in the Federal courts of law and the supreme court of the
United States.


I. Interpretation
1. The judicial power of the Federal courts are restricted to the interpretation of the laws
and the settling of cases and controversies within the context of the laws and the
Constution.


1.1 Judicial restraint:
1.1.1 Text and original intent as a guide:
Federal courts shall not have the power to create or construct new laws, rights and
privileges that are neither written in the text nor contemplated by the authors of the
laws and of the Constitution.
Recognition of similar rights and similar decisions does not give weight to extensions
in the law when such extensions are

1.1.1 Narrowness of legal conclusions:
THE Federal courts should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is
required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."
[see liverpool, new york & philadelphia s.s. co. v. commissioners of emigration, 113 u.s.
33, 39 (1885). see also ashwander v. tva, 297 u.s. 288, 345 (1936)
(brandeis, j., concurring)]

1.1.2 .Any statute found to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff,
but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not to be declared wholly invalid,
but is to be declared unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the court.
[YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); STREET V. NEW YORK, 394 U.S. 576
(1969).]


1.2 Precedence in US law only:
The Federal courts may not give legal standing, precedence or consideration
to laws, decisions, and rulings made outside the United States and its predecessors
and common law as either precedent or influence.

1.3 Rule of law:
Federal courts must give due consideration in all rulings and decisions to the effect
of their rulings on the rule of law, but in no case should preserve precedents
at various with the text and intent of the laws in question.

1.4 Proscribing activist Constitutional theories:
Federal courts and their officers may not invoke legal theories such
as a "living constitution"; a Constitution is alive only if the rule of law is
alive, and it derives its life from the certainty that the text and meaning
of the law can be preserved and maintained in a court of law.

1.5 Separation of powers:
No federal court has the power to tax or to demand or require any
other branch or body of Government to enact a tax.
No federal court has the power to demand a specific regulatory action by the executive branch,
or a specific legislative results by the legislative branch as a legal remedy in the courts,
nor may the courts demand or specify a range of such actions,
nor may any Federal court set such timetables for such action.


II. Federalism

2. The powers of Federal courts are to be used with restraint and respect for the
Federal scheme of Government, respecting the powers of the states and local
governments as established in Amendment X.

2.1 The powers not delegated to the judicial branch of the Federal Government are
reserved for the States and the people and branches of Government therein.
Jurisprudence of rights of the people under state laws and regulations
shall not be construed to unlawfully restrict or distort the Federal scheme,
especially with regards to rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
The protectors of the unenumerated rights of citizens within each state
include the republican form of Government of each state, the rights of redress
of the citizens, and the Constitution of each of the states.


2.2 Equal protection under the law shall not be abridged;
no Federal or State law may discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic origin.

2.3 In all matters of equal protection excepting race,
a rational basis for distinctions made in the law to regulate behavior that
is applied to all citizens or persons shall be considered presumptive;

2.3 No State or Federal agency may deprive a citizen of rights of life,
liberty or property without due process of law; the rights of due process under the law
as enumerated in the 14th amendment and herein are strictly those relating to the
proper process of proceedings at law; those rights of persons to due process
under amendments 4,5,6,and 8 shall not be infringed by Federal Government or the States.
Appellate jurisdiction under due process may extend only to that extent,
and not beyond this to the review of laws that are legally and Constitutionally
passed and enforced in manners consistent with the due procedural rights of accused.

2.4 States and the Congress shall have the power to define the
extent of Human Life and may take measures to protect the human right to life.
The protection of human life is a rational basis for regulation in law.
These provisions shall be deemed an enforcement of the XIV Amendment
as given in section V of that amendment.

2.6 The Forteenth amendment nor the Constitution as a whole
shall not be construed in a manner to disturb the Federal
nature of the United States Government.


III. Religious Expression Rights

3. The Federal judicial powers may not be used to infringe on the rights
of free expression of religious sentiment, either public or private.

3.1 The voluntary free expressions of religion or belief, public or private,
by State officials and by the citizens of the states, and upon seals,
signs, coinage, displays, monuments, markers, property and buildings of the states
and Federal government, and during oaths, pledges, ceremonies and
testimonies, are not deemed contrary to restrictions in the Constitution
that forbid the establishment of a religion and shall not be subject to
contrary judicial review of the Federal courts.

3.2 The protection of national symbols:
The power by Congress and the states to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States
is not considered an infringment of the First Amendment rights of free speech, and such specific legislation
shall not be deemed contrary to the Constituion of the United States by any contrary judicial
review by the Federal courts and Supreme Court.

IV. Enforcement

4.1 Justices may be impeached for bad behavior, consisting of both bad public behavior and bad private behavior.

4.2 No immunity shielding a judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law,
fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts,
judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate
violation of the Constitutions or laws of the United States.

4.2 Disregard for the provisions of this statute or of the Constitution of the United States in
the rendering of any Federal court decision shall be deemed 'bad behavior', and may be adjudged
as impeachable offenses.
30 posted on 11/26/2003 9:47:48 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
NutCracker, outrage after outrage is commited, yet the sheeple get sheared and the frog is boiled further and does not move:

"I predict impeachments of runaway courts will start happening within five years."

BUT WHY NOT *NOW*???

Let me quote Reagan: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Quote from Roe v Wade by Justice Brennan: " There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth...". My son Peter was born today, and I know that Justice Brennan is an idiot - my son has been alive, kicking feeling thinking growing in the womb for months (9 months to be precise). This abhorrent and stupid decision was made 30 years ago, and still stands, even though modern medical technology makes a mockery of the feeble justification for this decision (it was bad science as well as bad con law).

There is a way to stop it, see my previous post. Let me know what you think. Had it been passed and followed since 1970, 98% of the legal outrages since would have been stopped.


31 posted on 11/26/2003 9:53:07 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Judges don't make law."

In theory.

In practice, Judges make laws willy-nilly and are getting worse and worse each

Just like the taxes go up until the tax-hikers get smacked down, this will not end until Judges are smacked down hard for their evil ways.

The impeachment of Judges on charges of excessive activism is a good place to start.
32 posted on 11/26/2003 9:55:10 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
Crispus Atticus was gay?

-PJ

just kidding...

33 posted on 11/26/2003 10:06:14 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Here is a rant I published a couple of months ago lamenting both the corruption of the confirmation process and the corruption of the judicial process by liberal judges, some of whom were here shown to be venal as well as misguided:


We are getting perilously close to something other than a democratic representative government, circumscribed by a written constitution, as interpreted by honest jurists.

Here are a collection of my comments made over time which are quite lengthy and their reproduction has a tinge of self-absorption. Skip them if you like:

Our system works on the notion of stare decisis which has come to mean the encrustation of baby steps away from the plain meaning of the constitution. My fear is that the process has gone irretrievably far. The encrustation is so complete that plainly unconstitutional opinions like Roe v Wade not only become a bulwark against original constitutional meaning, they become themselves an independent justification for further mischief, such as the sodomy cases.
I posted this:

The significance of these recent Supreme Court decisions (Sodomy; quotas) is as follows, and they are, without exception, ominous:

1. The battle over states' rights, 138 years after Appomattox and 49 years after the court ordered school integration, is finally, conclusively, over. There are no more states' rights and it is only a matter of time until the court gets around to picking off the remaining vestiges of states' powers one by one. I stand by this despite the guns at schools ruling).

2. The idea of the written constitution as a social contract is dead. It has now morphed into a manifesto which can accommodate groups' rights as they come into favor.

3. The idea that law, constitutional law, should be dominant in ordering the affairs of men is now dead and in its place we will governed by a cocktail of sociology, anthropology, psychology, and pop culture.

4. The unwritten Confession of Faith shared by our Justices for generations in which they conceive themselves in spirit to be LEGAL arbiters operating within a LEGAL system and according to its rules has been tacitly abandoned, although its vocabulary has been retained to conceal the metamorphis, and the Justices now have assumed a new role as Shamans, Priesters, Oracles or something quite different which has yet to be fully revealed.

5. The legal system will cease to be a place where rights are vindicated and become a source for the establishment of INTERESTS. To attain the establishment of his interests, the clever advocate will see that the Gods of the new system will have to be propitiated. This means that successful advocates will have established their cause as the flavor of the month in an ever-changing menu of fads, movements, and the like.

6. Resort to the Constitution will be an empty exercise resorted to by fools who do not know how the real game is actually being played. At the risk of quoting myself, here is what I posted that reflects how I feel:

I view this venal corruption as the inevitable result of the intellectual, procedural and constitutional corruption which the left has insinuated into our legal system.

The left has wrenched our polity away from the constitution, pettifogging its plain meaning. It has used judges to accomplish this.

It has undermined democracy by converting political issues like abortion or sodomy into legal/constitutional questions. It has used judges to accomplish this.

It has made a mindless parlour game of gotcha out of the criminal justice system, substituting a gauntlet of obstacles which the prosecution must negotiate in place of the quest for truth. It has used judges to accomplish this.

It has established favored groups and disestablished other less favored Americans not only as they interact with their government but privately, as in matters of free association or job quotas. They have used judges to accomplish this.

The left has corrupted the process of selecting judges. First, by character assasination as against Bork and then Thomas. Now, by filibustering their way to a super majority. It is not original to observe that this was the predictable result of politicising the judicial system.

The left has attempted to control elections through judicial fiat as in the Florida Supreme Court with its palpable bias in the election matter. Or in California where the courts overturned a successful referendum on policy grounds. Or in Arizona where a court usurped the budget making powers. Likewise in Pa. They used judges to accomplish all of this.

And it was equally predictable that quite soon the judges themselves would start jiggering their own system. The left has made the stakes too high to leave the answers to the rules of procedure. So we see the assignment judge playing games in the Clinton affair. We see the circuit court jobbing the system in the affirmative action cases. This happens precisely because the left made them judges to get their agenda into the books, not to concern themselves with so abstract a notion as "justice." So leftist judges become corrupt in the administration of their own courts.

Now we see venal corruption. This was also to be foreseen. Why should greed stand as the lone taboo in a sea of sin and political opportunism? Just where should the whore say, "no, that far I will not go." http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958376/posts?page=8#8

In short, I fear the rot is so pervasive, so institutionalised, that not even nominating the right horses can retrieve the situation. I sincerely hope I am wrong. My pessimism does not imply that we should not try -it is all we have left before the barricades
34 posted on 11/26/2003 10:35:38 PM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
He better step up to the plat strongly on this
his political ship taking on water as it is.
This really is a great chance for him to get
back on track but if does not boldly lead
on this he is toast.
35 posted on 11/26/2003 11:19:53 PM PST by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
the question whether Americans are willing to submit to what Thomas Jefferson predicted would be "the despotism of an oligarchy" if judges are allowed to be "the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions."

Now that people are finally catching on as to what an oligarchy is, next word is: oligopoly.

There ain't no two political parties; there are two oligopolies.

36 posted on 11/27/2003 3:36:27 AM PST by Ff--150 (The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vanmorrison
You are on the right track. Now start looking into whether or not lawyers and therefore judges are nobility!

Big can of worms you'll be opening =-)

37 posted on 11/27/2003 3:43:14 AM PST by Ff--150 (The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
I don't know about the two mentioned, but I do know that California, of all the places you would least expect, voted Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Byrd out of office, and my state of Tennessee also voted out Supreme Court Justice Penny White. In both cases, their willingness to find or invent any excuse to interfere with death penalties was responsible for their defeat.
38 posted on 11/27/2003 6:35:06 AM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; scripter; american colleen; raph
Another great editorial on this topic!

Those judges had no authority to change the definition of marriage. They contemplated their navels and convinced themselves that they alone could change social policy and make new law, and even contemptuously opined that belief in traditional marriage is without a "rational basis."

"We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it," and we need to decide "what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law."

But what "law"? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages. The judges enunciated only special-interest advocacy masquerading as legal reasoning.

39 posted on 11/27/2003 7:23:35 AM PST by NYer (Prayer is strength for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
All over the country the judges have gone too far. It's past time to get many of them removed. A supreme even publicly stated that she wasn't about to follow the Constiution in her decisions.

We have a dictatorship of judges.
40 posted on 11/27/2003 7:28:56 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Very interesting rant. The only hope I see is that more people wake up to this situation, wake up from the thralldom of the left, get more actual conservatives elected, toss out the leftist judges - maybe it'll work. Even a huge ocean liner can turn once it decides to turn. What do you think?
41 posted on 11/27/2003 11:14:12 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Ff--150
But what "law"? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages. The judges enunciated only special-interest advocacy masquerading as legal reasoning.

Only the legislature can create law - draft bill, debate it, vote etc. Judicial opinions are NOT law. And never will be.

42 posted on 11/28/2003 11:02:42 AM PST by 4CJ ('Scots vie 4 tavern juices' - anagram by paulklenk, 22 Nov 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson