Thomas Sowell: Supreme Court prime example of lawlessness

Naples Daily News ^ | 12/25/03 | Thomas Sowell

[Redcloak]

Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?

And to think that there are some here who were grousing about this same black-robed mob turning down the chance to take a whack at the words "shall not be infringed"!

[snopercod]

There is nobody that is both electable and "better". That's the problem, and we have the republicans to thank for it.

This administration has had every opportunity to educate the sheeple. For instance, Bush could have said, "I'm not signing this Campaign Reform Bill because it violates the Constitution that I have sworn to uphold and defend."

He could have said, "History has proven that centrally-planned economies never work", but instead, he has increased the size of the federal behemoth by 25% in the last three years.

Apparently he is ashamed of the principles on which this country was founded, ashamed of the Constitution, and ashamed of Capitalism. Apparently he thinks that Americans are fools which need to be tricked into doing what's best for them.

The republicans might as well be democRATS - at least we would know where they stood. But with the republicans, you can plan on them saying one thing and doing the opposite. You can plan on them caving before the battle is even joined. The reason, of course, is that they don't really have any principles worth fighting for.

Some folks will just have to learn the hard way, I guess.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

-- H. L. Menken

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"You're talking about having Congress impeach a court for upholding Congress's own law?"

"Why is the outrage all of the sudden being directed at SCOTUS?"
====================================================

I, My outrage WAS directed at Congress when they were passing this abomination among others. The "Court" now rightly deserves our outrage and censure for not striking down this obviously unConstitutional law. Peace and love, George.

[Publius6961]

Read Kozinski's opinion on the appeal of Daubert v. Merrill Dow, then get back to me.

Does it materially address the three examples I gave?
If not, life is too short.

Sorry.

[tpaine]

mansion;
Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?



And to think that there are some here who were grousing about this same black-robed mob turning down the chance to take a whack at the words "shall not be infringed"!
61

---

Do you ~want~ fed/state/local legisators to continue infringing upon our RKBA's?

I want the USSC to 'rule' on this issue..
Either way they go, -- we will win.

What possible objection do you have? Why keep avoiding the confrontation?

[Publius6961]

I agree with everything you've said but my question remains unanswered: Whom will you vote for?
Who shall be the perfect candidate with whom you will agree 100%?

[SevenDaysInMay]

THE one test of any candidate for Congress and Preseident is whether they will uphold our Ratified Constitution.

Blackrobes do not have terms for life, they may serve only during periods of GOOD behavior, which is obeying the only legally enforceable social contract from which they themselves derive any and all of their LAWFULL powers. For 70 years, too many blackrobes have been outlaws.

Our Constitution means what it sys, not what 9 old men and women may say it says. Their rogue orders may be interesting, but when they create and approve law in opposition to our RATIFIED CONSTITUION, such court orders are crimes themselves warrenting impeachment and removeal from office and their lavish benefits.

Either these people, who must see themselves as some kind of high priests, act within our Ratified Constitution or they must be removed as tyrants.

The Rhenquist SCOTUS gang has done serious damage to our Bill of Rights, if one cares about stare decisis, "they made me do it" rule for inferior blackrobes committing monkey see: monkey do on the bench. Following old, bad law is never good law.

There is no excuse.

Citizens have no obligation to follow the rule of tyrants acting without any basis in the only controlling legal authority of this republic, our RATIFIED Constitution.

[MarkL]

Don't forget the SCOTUS affirmation of asset forfeiture, where property can be taken without actually charging the owner with a crime... Then the rightful owner has to file law suits to regain their rightfully owned property.

Mark

[thesummerwind]

Our courts have become tyrants!

So, what are YOU thinking about doing about it?

[FairWitness]

"We are the law!"

[HardStarboard]

>>>Sure. And perhaps pigs will fly too. <<<

As my Aeronautics 301 instructor said (and also a FReeper said this recently):

With sufficent thrust, pigs fly quite nicely!

[oldfart]

Cool. When it finally happens... I'll take a bucket of wings! Original recipe, please.

[Redcloak]

Why keep avoiding the confrontation?

Ever read Sun Tzu? Fight battles you've already won.

[Hacksaw]

I want the USSC to 'rule' on this issue.. Either way they go, -- we will win.

I DON'T. There is no telling what abomination those idiots would turn it into.

[Krodg]

Father, God, you have said recently through a prophetic voice

Do you have a link for this 'prophet'?

[tpaine]

Do you ~want~ fed/state/local legisators to continue infringing upon our RKBA's?
I want the USSC to 'rule' on this issue..
Either way they go, -- we will win.
What possible objection do you have? Why keep avoiding the confrontation?
65 tpaine

---

Ever read Sun Tzu? Fight battles you've already won.
73 -red-

---

We won that battle when the BOR's was ratified..
Why do you want to avoid pinning down the USSC on the issue of 70 years of state/federal violations of our RKBA's?

It's time to stop them.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Why is the outrage all of the sudden being directed at SCOTUS? Congress is the one primarily responsible for this abomination - they're the ones at whom our wrath should be directed. So what's going to done? Are we going to make them feel it? How?

And what about Bush? There wouldn't have even been a case for the SCOTUS to rule on if he had vetoed that bill.

[tpaine]

The best thing they could do would be to flat out reject an individual right..
This would lead to a constiutional crisis that would resolve many other socialistic/prohibitional issues, imo..

We need to re-establish that all levels of our governments do not have the powers over individual freedoms that they have been allowed to assume in the last hundred years..



It is mindboggling to see 'conservatives' argue otherwise.. Why do you do so?

[Quix]

Yes. But have some other priorities at the moment. Will get to it probably this evening.

[kingu]

Interesting list, but you got Bob Dornan wrong. Rather than Russia, he should be the new ambassador to China.