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

Skip to comments.

Thomas Sowell: Supreme Court prime example of lawlessness
Naples Daily News ^ | 12/25/03 | Thomas Sowell

Posted on 12/27/2003 2:15:45 AM PST by mansion

Lawlessness usually conjures up images of a wild frontier or mobs in the streets. But the painful reality is that the supreme examples of lawlessness in our times are in the august and sedate chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.

If you think the issue in the recent Supreme Court decision upholding campaign finance legislation is whether campaign finance reform is a good idea or a bad idea, then you have already surrendered the far more important and more fundamental idea of Constitutional government.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to regulate what is said by whom, or under what conditions, in a political campaign. On the contrary, the Constitution says plainly, "Congress shall make no law" — no law! — "abridging the freedom of speech."

The merits or demerits of this particular law, restricting what you can say when, or how much money you can contribute to get your message out, are all beside the point. Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?

The sad — indeed, tragic — fact is that they understand completely. They just think that this legislation is a good idea and are not going to let the Constitution stand in their way.

Moreover, they know from experience that if they can snow us with huge amounts of pious rhetoric, saying the kinds of things that the mainstream media will echo, that their wilful exercise of power will go unchallenged. In short, the Constitution be damned, we're doing our own thing.

At least the people who engaged in wild west shootouts or lynch mob violence spared us the pretence that they were upholding the Constitution. Whatever horrors these lawless and murderous people might inflict at particular times and places, they never had the power to undermine the very basis of the government of the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court does — and is in the process of doing just that. Other courts, taking their cue from the top, have likewise behaved like little tin gods, imposing their own notions disguised as law.

One of the tragedies of our time, and a harbinger of future tragedies, is that court decisions at all levels have come to be judged by whether we agree or disagree with the policy that is upheld or overturned.

Recent controversies over gay marriage have been a classic example of failing to see the woods for the trees. The most fundamental issue is not gay marriage. The most fundamental issue is who is to decide whether or not to legalize gay marriage — and all the other decisions that define a free, self-governing people, as distinguished from people living under dictators in black robes.

The political left is all for judicial activism, because courts can impose much of the liberal agenda that most elected officials are afraid to impose, such as racial quotas, gay marriage and driving religious expression underground.

Bitter and ugly fights over judicial nominees are one consequence of liberals' heavy dependence on judges to impose policies which elected officials dare not impose. Decent, honorable and highly qualified people like California Justice Janice Rogers Brown are smeared and lied about because they insist that what the Constitution says still matters.

Sadly, the idea that judges are to make social policy, not just enforce the Constitution and the statutes, has spread even among some conservative constituencies. The National Rifle Association, for example, attacked Justice Brown for upholding California's assault weapons ban.

The issue was not whether Justice Brown personally favored this ban or not. The issue was whether the state legislature had the right to impose such a ban. Since there is no right to bear arms in the California Constitution, and state judges are bound by federal courts' interpretation of that right in the federal Constitution, this decision was the only one to make.

We can't vote for federal judges but we can vote for those who appoint them and those who confirm them. We need to remember judges — and the Constitution — when we are in that voting booth, if we want our votes to continue to mean something.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: campaignfinance; cfr; financereform; scotus; sowell; thomassowell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last
Didn't see this great Sowell article posted yet...

One of my favorite author/columnists.

California Justice Janice Rogers Brown are smeared and lied about because they insist that what the Constitution says still matters.

We NEED to get her on the SCOTUS!

How about this ticket: Sowell/Brown in 2008? I know, I'm living in a dreamland - but it's nice to dream :)
1 posted on 12/27/2003 2:15:46 AM PST by mansion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mansion; farmfriend; editor-surveyor; harpseal; sauropod
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to regulate what is said by whom, or under what conditions, in a political campaign. On the contrary, the Constitution says plainly, "Congress shall make no law" — no law! — "abridging the freedom of speech."

The merits or demerits of this particular law, restricting what you can say when, or how much money you can contribute to get your message out, are all beside the point. Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?

The sad — indeed, tragic — fact is that they understand completely. They just think that this legislation is a good idea and are not going to let the Constitution stand in their way.
============================================

Guys, Elect Congresspeople that will IMPEACH the godless bums on courts that nullify the Constitution of the United States of America with it's attendant amendments despite giving their SWORN OATH to "Uphold and Defend" that same document. Peace and love George.
2 posted on 12/27/2003 2:51:37 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mansion
What can be done? They won't retire and enjoy better health than anyone ever imagined. Impeach them...What an uphill battle with an apathetic, uninformed electorate. But ours is a republic if we can keep it. So I guess we just have to start pushing the rock uphill.
3 posted on 12/27/2003 2:57:08 AM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mansion
While we're dreaming...here are my picks...

Condoleeza Rice/Jeb Bush - Prez/V.P.

Thomas Sowell - Secretary of Education
Walter Williams - Fed. Reserve Chairman
Art Laffer - Fed. Reserver Vice-Chairman
Lawrence Kudlow - Secretary of the Treasury
Ann Coulter - U.S. Attorney General
Oliver North - Secretary of Defense
Antonin Scalia - Chief Justice SCOTUS
Janice Rogers Brown - Associate Justice SCOTUS
Miguel Estrada - Associate Justice SCOTUS
Rush Limbaugh - Secretary of State
Donald Rumsfeld - U.S. Ambassador to France
Bob Dornan - U.S. Ambassador to Russia
Michelle Malkin - INS Commissioner
Pat Buchanan - EPA Administrator
Jonah Goldberg - White House Press Secretary

I expect to be flamed by paleocons for flunking their 100% purity tests.
4 posted on 12/27/2003 2:57:44 AM PST by Young Rhino (http://www.artofdivorce.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mansion
What we have now amounts to a judicial coup.
5 posted on 12/27/2003 3:04:28 AM PST by patj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mansion
Some so-called 'conservatives' also think that random suspicionless drug testing of high school students is "a good thing" - based primarily on the fact that they are against the use of illicit drugs. The Supremes, of course (as demonstrated in the Earls decision), are among them.

Not only is this a way to slide socialized healthcare into the schools, it (more importantly) violates the privacy rights of innocent students.

The Supremes decided that parents don't count in this situation, and the schools are free to do what they want.

Anyone interested in the SCOTUS should read this decision; it is a classic of perverted logic and the advancement of socialism.

6 posted on 12/27/2003 3:06:00 AM PST by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mansion
Here! Here! Our courts have become tyrants!

Judge Bork's new book is all about the tyranny of the courts. I would love to hear the word impeachment being used in regards to our judges.

7 posted on 12/27/2003 3:07:25 AM PST by LinnieBeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Young Rhino
that is GREAT! where to start?

Well, Condi is probably the best choice for the first woman president, she could bridge the gap for the GOP as far as women and minorities go. I don't know enough about her to judge conservative bonafides, but the rest of the cabinet and the SCOTUS you picked could keep her in line!

Sowell and Williams would actively campaign to abolish their respective agencies, and I'd LOVE to see what Mrs. Malkin could do with the INS or USCIS or whatever they're calling it now!

Who'd be your pick for Sec. of Homeland Security?

My only complaint: I'd miss Rush on the radio!
8 posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:20 AM PST by mansion (Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mansion
Who'd be your pick for Sec. of Homeland Security?

G. Gordon Liddy. :-)

9 posted on 12/27/2003 3:10:09 AM PST by Young Rhino (http://www.artofdivorce.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ed_in_NJ
Thurgood Marshall once pointed out that there is no "drug exception" to the constition... They would do well to remember that!
10 posted on 12/27/2003 3:15:11 AM PST by mansion (Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mansion
Government ....... The "people" giveth ....... the "people" taketh away.
11 posted on 12/27/2003 3:20:47 AM PST by G.Mason ( The nine dwarfs never looked dwarfer, - but I'm not gloating. ~ JohnHuang2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lainde
Impeach them...What an uphill battle with an apathetic, uninformed electorate.

You're not kidding - how many people even know that's an option? But if they wouldn't impeach Clinton, I don't even think they'll consider impeaching any of the Supremes..

But ours is a republic if we can keep it.

Is it still?

Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

12 posted on 12/27/2003 3:21:14 AM PST by mansion (Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mansion; First_Salute
We now have an arbitry and capricious government.

It's just too bad that our President places such a low priority on seating his constitutionalist judicial choices. He could make recess appointments right now if he wanted.

...or do as First_Salute has proposed and march over to the Senate and demand an up or down vote when they get back from vacation.

13 posted on 12/27/2003 3:31:50 AM PST by snopercod (War is, at first, like a young girl with whom every man desires to flirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Young Rhino; Sandy
Correction: You want Alex Kozinski for Chief Justice of SCOTUS.

Don't know who he is? The Big Kozinski . His saving the recall election in California was just an encore to his driving a wooden stake through the heart of junk-science in the courtroom.

14 posted on 12/27/2003 3:37:11 AM PST by snopercod (War is, at first, like a young girl with whom every man desires to flirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
He could make recess appointments right now if he wanted.

Rather than make recess appointments (and have the Dimwits with the media distort what transpired), Bush is going to use this as a 2004 election issue. Frist will start moving on the nominees in the spring, the Dimwits will repeat their antics, and Bush will push during his speeches for the election of more GOP Senators. This has been in the planning for some time between Rove and Frist.

15 posted on 12/27/2003 3:40:21 AM PST by Young Rhino (http://www.artofdivorce.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Thanks for the info. Interesting fellow. The Dimwits would have coronaries with his nomination. Imagine Byrd, Leahy and Kennedy blustering about the rule of law.
16 posted on 12/27/2003 3:42:47 AM PST by Young Rhino (http://www.artofdivorce.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Young Rhino; SierraWasp; joanie-f
Bush is going to use this as a 2004 election issue.

That's exactly why I won't vote for him again. He places a higher value on getting re-elected than on the future of America.

The list of his affronts to the U.S. Constitition is long. Don't try to argue with me; my mind's made up.

17 posted on 12/27/2003 3:57:15 AM PST by snopercod (I've posted a total of 574 threads and 15,746 replies. Some of them even make sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mansion; Jim Robinson; All
DEAR FREEPERS: May those of you so inclined and in agreement with Sowell and with the following prayer tell The Lord so and add your weight of agreement to it's impact--or--make adjustments and add your own version of agreement.

Lord God, this author is so right.

Father, God, you have said recently through a prophetic voice that you are going to begin to deal with The Supreme Court and bring it around much more to your priorities and will.

May it be so, Lord. May it be so speedily. Father, where possible bring each Supreme Court Justice to a St Paul Damascus Road experience with THE LIVING GOD such that they know you and support your priorities and values. If they will not, Father, then deal with them as severely as you find necessary. If it is your will that they be removed from the Court and from public life, PLEASE MAKE IT SO ASAP.

And, Father, let it be known--do it in such a way--that it is obvious to any half-wit, even, that YOU, THAT ALMIGHTY GOD HAS DONE THIS THING--THAT ALMIGHTY GOD IS SPEAKING OVERTLY, STARKLY, DRAMATICALLY TO THE SUPREME COURT--AND THAT NO HUMAN COURT IN THE LAND, NO HUMAN COURT ON THE PLANET IS BEYOND YOUR CENSURE OR ADJUSTMENT.

So be it, in Jesus' Precious Name, Amen.
18 posted on 12/27/2003 3:57:29 AM PST by Quix (Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
He could do alot of things that I'm sure he won't...

like use his veto power on occasion! I mean, come on! I read somewhere that Reagan had already vetoed 22 bills at this point in his presidency, and he didn't even have line-item veto! (I think!)

I know the FreeRepublic defense of Bush, though: "He's stealing Democrat issues!"
19 posted on 12/27/2003 3:58:46 AM PST by mansion (Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Lord, I believed it when I read recently, that you are going to change Larry King into one of your spokespersons or some such--that he will become aligned with your perspective and priorities. And, that you are going to change ABC NEWS into an organization which speaks out the truth, your truth.

Lord, however accurate that is, to whatever degree you plan to do that--PLEASE DO IT EMPHATICALLY AND SPEEDILY, IN Jesus' Name.
20 posted on 12/27/2003 4:01:13 AM PST by Quix (Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Perhaps the so-called, right-of-center, O'Connor should be the first to be hit with an impeachment bill for her open admission of adherence to a slew of legal tradition from other nations, outside our Constitution, in a recent tradition. As that is in direct violation of her sworn duty the case is made by her own words.

A conservative would introduce a bill, upon Principle and Dems would stumble in circles conflicted whether to defend the perversion or to adhere to their Principle and always act for political advantage.

Probably be a stand for RLC to make. Now, if tpaine was in the US House, we might have a chance. It would be great fun to watch.

21 posted on 12/27/2003 4:29:50 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
The simple fact of the matter is the Supreme Court Justices will never be impeached! If Congress wouldn't impeach Bubba, they'll give the Supremes a pass too.

I see only one scenario in which the Supreme Court will be humbled, it would require much violence and the people of America aren't ready for it... yet! The term "Romanian Term Limits" comes to mind, but things will have to get much worse before that can happen. Aanother hundred years or so....

22 posted on 12/27/2003 4:31:24 AM PST by oldfart ("All governments and all civilizations fall... eventually. Our government is not immune.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Opps, forgot to ping you, since I mentioned you. And you know...this isn't entirely in jest.
23 posted on 12/27/2003 4:34:44 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: Ed_in_NJ
"privacy rights"??????
25 posted on 12/27/2003 5:26:54 AM PST by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metesky
What an interesting response!

Evidently your experience in such matters is quite limited.
26 posted on 12/27/2003 5:31:42 AM PST by Quix (Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Better to have limited experience than to broadcast one's delusions.
27 posted on 12/27/2003 5:36:57 AM PST by metesky (My investment program is still holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Perhaps I'll post my reference for my comments in another thread. He has predicted several things accurately in recent months, including Sadddammm's capture.

But I guess I wouldn't expect your mind to open enough to get much out of such a post so I probably won't bother you with a ping.
28 posted on 12/27/2003 5:38:00 AM PST by Quix (Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metesky
I didn't know you were interested in my delusions.

Perhaps I could dig some up from the archives.

LOL.

I'm beginning to feel sad about your very disadvantaged educational life experiences.

Ah well.

Hopefully, you can at least vote for Bush.
29 posted on 12/27/2003 5:40:20 AM PST by Quix (Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
The simple fact of the matter is the Supreme Court Justices will never be impeached!

Worse yet it was Congress that passed the dam CFR and Bush that signed it

No way they are going to impeach a judge that agrees with them
30 posted on 12/27/2003 5:43:58 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Quix
He has predicted several things accurately in recent months, including Sadddammm's capture.

Who is this "he" being referred too, God or Larry King? If it's King, I don't watch CNN and if it's God, then He must have been talking directly to his conduit on earth, the priestly Quix, and left me out of the message loop.

Annnd whhho onnn earrrth isss thhhis Sadddammm?

31 posted on 12/27/2003 5:45:54 AM PST by metesky (My investment program is still holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mansion
I sat in on an argument at the Supreme Court earlier this month. It was the first time I had done so. I kept thinking of these lyrics that concluded Bob Dylan's "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll:"
In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.
ML/NJ
32 posted on 12/27/2003 5:59:49 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LinnieBeth
The liberal and "moderate" members of the Supreme Court should be considered outlaws in the classic meaning of the term. They are not subject to the protection of the law and anyone can do anything to them.
33 posted on 12/27/2003 6:01:57 AM PST by rcofdayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metesky
I'm referring to a fairly well known Christian prophetic character who I'm slowly growing to respect more and more. If and when I post his document or a summary of documents on his accurate hits, his name will be clear, then.

Oh, Saddddddddammmmmmnnnn is my fun with his name. So sad it's of no humor to you.

BTW, are you this starchy with your children? Do you have children? Do they talk to you much?
34 posted on 12/27/2003 6:06:18 AM PST by Quix (Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
The simple fact of the matter is the Supreme Court Justices will never be impeached!

True enough. After all, how can Congress justify impeaching justices for upholding unconstitutional laws that they passed? Or for effecting change through issues the Congress is too cowardly to address itself and has imparted the power to the courts.

35 posted on 12/27/2003 6:07:22 AM PST by NEPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metesky
BTW, I'm curious,

shall we compare professional training regarding delusions?

How about experience in assessing them?

How about experience in treating them?
36 posted on 12/27/2003 6:07:38 AM PST by Quix (Particularly quite true conspiracies are rarely proven until it's too late to do anything about them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f; snopercod
Mr. Sowell's remarks about what is at stake, how "you" miss it if "you" are determined to go with bending the Constitution to "your" agenda --- that is what most concerns me, here, at FR, and everywhere.

Because there can be no rule of law with "law" unhinged from its basic precepts, and especially its concepts, again, that it is fixed unless lawfully amended.

What good is a mass of Freepers here, who will surrender bits and pieces of our Constitution in order to "win" some politic of the moment?

My warning about where Republicans in name only, are going, is a repeat of more wisdom from history: He who lies down with dogs, gets up with fleas.

The "plan" to assume liberalism so that a leftist does not [not appear to] get elected, achieves just that, no matter how "tough on crime" the Assumer to the Throne claims to be.

Comparing and contrasting, for example, Orin Hatch (a "tough on crime" politician) with George Bush (a "tough on crime politician"); we learned the hard way as Mr. Hatch destroyed the Republican landslide victory of November 1994, by rejecting the House outright (because he was more comfortable letting the Democrats lead); and we have learned how Mr. Bush cares not for the above-mentioned basis of our Constitution that is so fundamental to our liberty (because he is more comfortable blaming Republicans and conservatives than facing the leftist charges of his being "meanspirited").

I shall never forget the day (during Bill Clinton's Impeachment) when Rush Limbaugh went ballistic because George W. Bush's politicos were found to be in negotiation with Trent Lott and Co., in order that "President" Clinton be let off the hook, in order that Clinton's removal from office not be "contentious" and work against George becoming President.

Rush does not want to talk about that now.

And too many Freepers do not want to face up to it either.

If there were now no "War on Terrorism," I would bet that most Freepers would be stunned by George W. Bush's domestic plan for us.

I would bet that, even without a "War on Terrorism," he would have passed all the laws to date, in order that "soccor moms" felt safe.

No matter how many of our foundations of liberty, George was negotiating away from the "moms'" without their ever bothering to know a wit.

I'll still vote for the Republican candidate for President of the United States, because I do not want the Democrat candidate in that office, but I will not be voting for George W. Bush.

He and too many others have gone the way of "Tough on Crime" v. rule of law; when there are no liberties and rights of the people that need to be sacrificed.

Let us say that the Republicans sweep all the November 2004 elections.

Who will George W. Bush pick for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice?

If anybody thinks that nomination will be either Anton Scalia or Clarence Thomas, then they have not learned, who is George W. Bush.

Clarence Thomas would be a great pick.

Yet O'Connor seems to be the top choice for Mr. Bush.

snopercod is correct; the federal government is unhinged from our Constitution.

The Constitution has become merely a procedural formality, because lawyers must have some rule of the day upon which to enter a contest and "win."

The view by government officials, is that our Constitution is no longer ours.

They call it "living," when they have done much to kill it, piece by piece, casting it petrified and quaint for historians to fuss over in "the dialog" and "the literature" at [leftist] university.

Because our Constitution is in the way of what politicians want.

Exactly where our Founding Fathers originally intended for it to be.


37 posted on 12/27/2003 6:10:00 AM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rcofdayton
What you assert or, heaven forbid, advocate at #33 is radicalism of the first order. Any Leninist would be proud of such expediency and lack of conservatism.

Since conservatism was named, in the time of Burke, Conservatism has stood for freedom from arbitrary power, the rule of law, equality under law, adherence to Order instead of Ideology or fanaticism and strict suspicion of license masquerading as "liberty."

38 posted on 12/27/2003 6:28:30 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Umba-gumba alert.
39 posted on 12/27/2003 6:29:00 AM PST by Leisler (Bored? Short of cash? Go to a Dean "Meetin". It is free, freaky and you'll laugh your butt off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LinnieBeth
I would love to hear the word impeachment being used in regards to our judges.

bump

40 posted on 12/27/2003 6:38:43 AM PST by alrea (let's go back to when liberalism meant gaining more freedom from central authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mansion
Being remembered as one of the most evil and stupid women in American history will be O'Connor's distinction. Some honor.
41 posted on 12/27/2003 6:58:52 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mansion
I'll bet that burning in effigy the justices in question wouldn't be considered by them to be constitutionally-protected speech.
42 posted on 12/27/2003 7:08:32 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mansion
I am so angered by what is going on in the SCOTUS. This truly is a bigger threat to our way of life than anything I've seen in my lifetime and I include the terrorist threat in that. This is getting -way- too little attention on our side of the political spectrum. This SCOTUS has totally run amok. Equal protection doesn't really mean "Equal". What part of "shall make no law" you figure they're having trouble with? I was absolutely FLOORED by this decision. I thought they might uphold the soft money part but banning purely political speech for 60 days before an ELECTION?!?!

We NEED NEED NEED some decent judges on this court before we turn into Belgium in north America.

Republicans control all three bracnches of government for the first time in my life. Yet the left's agenda marches on unimpeded.
43 posted on 12/27/2003 7:10:59 AM PST by Athelas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
"If Congress wouldn't impeach Bubba..."

Congress DID impeach Bubba; the ball-less Senate didn't convict him! And conservatives/republicans who didn't bother to vote in '98 (right before the Senate "trial") are to blame for not sending a mandate to the Hill.

Pray let us not repeat that mistake this time. If we provide an overwhelming republican landslide at every level this coming November, perhaps those we send to office will be emboldened to do the right thing.

44 posted on 12/27/2003 7:25:42 AM PST by Thom Pain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Follow Posting Guidelines and knock off the personal attacks. Thank you.
45 posted on 12/27/2003 7:35:03 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Young Rhino
Donald Rumsfeld - U.S. Ambassador to France

ROTFLOL!

46 posted on 12/27/2003 7:35:32 AM PST by Sarastro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Athelas
Sure, the Republicans control all three branches of government, but who says they're not leftists too? There's no real difference between the major parties anymore, except the rapidity with which one will strip our freedoms away over the slower, more devious, 'other' party.

In one of Vin Suprynowicz's books he told a story about the 1932 election. He outlined the party platforms of the Democrats and the Socialists. The two were so diametrically dis-similar it couldn't be missed. The Socialists had all the usual leftist goals while the Democrats touted a platform that sounded almost like our present-day Libertarian platform.

Well, the Democrats won of course, and immediately began to include nearly all of the planks of the Socialist platform. It's been downhill from there.

I read something recently about a man who had died and been given a choice between Heaven and Hell. He wanted to see what each was like before he made his final decision, so he got to visit each.

Heaven was very nice, but rather tame, what with all the hymn singing and lying around on clouds. Hell, on the other hand was a lot more lively. He saw a bunch of his old friends drinking and partying and generally having a great time. "What happened? This isn't what I was promised!" he screamed.

Satan laughed evilly, "Those were campaign promises. Now you've elected us. Here, have some brimstone."

I wish that story could be likened to the Democratic party, but the Republicans are no better.

47 posted on 12/27/2003 7:37:19 AM PST by oldfart ("All governments and all civilizations fall... eventually. Our government is not immune.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mansion
Yeah, the prevailing sentiment around here is that full-blown socialism is OK if it has an (R) after it's name.
48 posted on 12/27/2003 7:38:58 AM PST by snopercod (I've posted a total of 574 threads and 15,748 replies. Some of them even make sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
Sorry. I proofread it and it looked good, but part of it got dropped somehow.

Anyway, when our "hero" chose Hell and finally moved in, he found that things had changed for the worse. It was the same old Hell he had been warned about as a child.

49 posted on 12/27/2003 7:40:25 AM PST by oldfart ("All governments and all civilizations fall... eventually. Our government is not immune.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Thom Pain
"If we provide an overwhelming republican landslide at every level this coming November, perhaps those we send to office will be emboldened to do the right thing.

Sure. And perhaps pigs will fly too.

50 posted on 12/27/2003 7:45:06 AM PST by oldfart ("All governments and all civilizations fall... eventually. Our government is not immune.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

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