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

Skip to comments.

Order in the Court (Ingraham)
www.LauraIngraham.com ^ | February 26, 2004 | Laura Ingraham

Posted on 02/27/2004 7:22:55 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day

Order in the Court!

Gasps are coming from the Left-and even from the Libertarian Right-about the President's decision (finally!) to confront our increasingly activist judiciary. This is an attempt to create a "wedge issue" echoed the lemmings in the media. This is another Bush attempt to "divide" the country!

Yet any gasps should be directed at the bench, where for decades Americans have seen their views and their traditions systematically trashed. Whether it's the issue of marriage, prayer at football games, or God in the Pledge of Allegiance, we've seen courts from coast to coast venture far beyond proper role in a naked attempt to create a new, forward-thinking social, political, and cultural framework.

From time to time in our history, Presidents have had to challenge the Supreme Court. Lincoln openly disagreed with the Court's Dred Scott Decision. FDR threatened to pack the Court because of its New Deal decisions. These presidents played a vital role in preventing the Court from thwarting the legitimate wishes of the American people.

For over 30 years, conservatives have been complaining about the courts, but the truth is, we've never really done that much about it. Republican presidents have put people like David Souter and John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and things have just gotten worse. President Reagan heralded the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor-a sharp, delightful person-yet she has consistently pushed the Court into dangerous territory. And let's not forget Anthony "You Have a Constitutional Right to Sodomy" Kennedy, another Reagan appointee.

President Bush and his supporters have to make clear that the fight over the gay marriage amendment is not a fight about gays, not a fight about marriage, but a fight about the power of the Courts. Conservatives should never take the process of amending the Constitution lightly, and President Bush should make it abundantly clear that this is a last resort given what the abuse by courts on the federal and state level.

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, among others, have insisted that the gay marriage issue be "left to the states." If reporters/anchors bothered to ask a follow-up question, they would point out that Justice Souter and his ilk will never be content to leave it to the states. (See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Rather they are intent on imposing Massachusetts' law on every state in America.

The salient point is that in a democracy, a few isolated individuals should not be allowed to make such sweeping changes in our law. This is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people, not a government of highly-placed lawyers who seek to impose their vision (much of which they get from European courts) on an unwilling populace.

Restraining the judiciary must be the top priority for conservative from now until judges get back to the business of judging. Some conservatives find themselves beguiled by the ritual, formality and history of the judiciary--the robes, the high ceilings. Now they must push beyond the nostalgia and finally recognize that too many courts have become agents for the most radical forces in our society. By now everyone should understand why Sen. Chuck Schumer & Co. have been fighting so viciously to block Bush's judicial nominees-the Courts are the one place where the Left has been consistently winning.

Can you feel the pendulum swing? I can.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; courts; dems; ingraham; judicialactivism; judicialnominees; lauraingraham; lawrencevtexas; marriage; marriageamendment; obstuctionists; scotus; theleft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
So now the Dems are on the States-rights bandwagon. So do they now support a state's right to outlaw abortion, thus making a federal Roe v. Wade decision irrelevant?
1 posted on 02/27/2004 7:22:56 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; Tredge; SAMWolf; It's me; nowings; LADY J; Zavien Doombringer; Pharmboy; Taliesan; ...
Laura Ingraham PING!


2 posted on 02/27/2004 7:23:58 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
>>So now the Dems are on the States-rights bandwagon. So do they now support a state's right to outlaw abortion, thus making a federal Roe v. Wade decision irrelevant?<<

Good question - how mny states had a law on the books against abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade? 38? Over 40?

3 posted on 02/27/2004 7:25:58 AM PST by Dan Middleton (Go Blue Jackets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Whether it's the issue of marriage, prayer at football games, or God in the Pledge of Allegiance, we've seen courts from coast to coast venture far beyond proper role in a naked attempt to create a new, forward-thinking social, political, and cultural framework.

Thanks for the ping. Another strong effort by Ingraham.

My only difference with her is in her use of the phrase "forward-thinking". I refuse to believe that the trashing of our national values and scandalization of our culture is "forward-thinking" in any way.

4 posted on 02/27/2004 7:33:22 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Forever is as far as I'll go.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton
Too many courts have become agents for the most radical forces in our society. By now everyone should understand why Sen. Chuck Schumer & Co. have been fighting so viciously to block Bush's judicial nominees-the Courts are the one place where the Left has been consistently winning. -Laura Ingraham

Millions of middle-of-the-road Democrats believe the party line that judicial nominees like Priscilla Owen are rabid right-wingers. It would be great if half of those millions withdrew their support for Democrat candidates until the national party pulled back their obstruction.

5 posted on 02/27/2004 7:36:38 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Good point. Maybe "progressive-thinking" would be better, as "progressive" is currently defined in the political arena, to mean: high taxes, low morals.
6 posted on 02/27/2004 7:38:29 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Wow, thanks for the picture Laurra is pretty hot- and smart.
7 posted on 02/27/2004 7:40:43 AM PST by Moleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Why not call it what it is: "damaging"?
8 posted on 02/27/2004 7:41:09 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Forever is as far as I'll go.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
In 100 years (less, actually) the Roe v Wade decision will be seamlessly linked with the Dred Scott decision as examples of terrible court decisions that led to long periods of suffering in the US before a moral status quo was re-asserted.

The homosexual marriage decisisons are the spark that sets the fire, but the fuel has been piling up for over 30 years.

9 posted on 02/27/2004 7:41:16 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (You can see it coming like a train on a track.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton
Good question - how mny states had a law on the books against abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade? 38? Over 40?

More than 30 states allowed some form of legal abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade.

I'm listening to George Will on the Laura Ingraham Show right now, and he just pointed out that the most reckless SCOTUS justices of the last 40 years were appointed by Republicans: Warren, Brennan, Stevens, and Souter.

Scary.


10 posted on 02/27/2004 7:43:07 AM PST by Sabertooth (Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Restraining the judiciary must be the top priority for conservative from now until judges get back to the business of judging.

Laura Bump


11 posted on 02/27/2004 7:47:52 AM PST by SAMWolf (I even have boring dreams...I fall asleep in my sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
I have a problem with that "forward thinking" remark, too. It seems to lend a credibility were none exists. "Forward thinking" took us from the stagecoach to the 747. Taking us down a slime-covered path to moral decay is "evil thinking".
12 posted on 02/27/2004 7:48:38 AM PST by whereasandsoforth (tagged for migratory purposes only)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Ingraham writes well on this. I just wish she wasn't such a whiner on her radio program. Her constant whining is grating to listen to so I keep having to change stations.Ingraham writes well on this.
13 posted on 02/27/2004 7:52:03 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
The Anne Coulter doctrine of posting a picture on the thread needs to be extended to Laura Ingraham.

Show of hands if you agree.
14 posted on 02/27/2004 7:52:19 AM PST by Redcoat LI ("If you're going to shoot,shoot,don't talk" Tuco BenedictoPacifico Juan Maria Ramirez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
I have been to leftist events. In addition to calling their ideas "progressive" they always call themselves "forward-thinking." I think Ingraham was mocking them.
15 posted on 02/27/2004 7:57:59 AM PST by axel f
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Help me to understand how 60-70% of Americans being opposed to homosexual marriage are all "right wing". Why are liberals never asked about this? Even a majority of democrats oppose gay marriage. If anything it is a "wedge issue" for the democrat leadership. This is a GOOD thing.
16 posted on 02/27/2004 8:00:58 AM PST by boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: axel f
Indeed. But when mocking, authors should use quotation marks. Considering the proven track record the opposition has for taking comments out of context, why take the chance?
17 posted on 02/27/2004 8:01:10 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Forever is as far as I'll go.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton; MNLDS
Excellent Point!!!

I hope that W uses this exact analogy in the campaign. If you think this is a States Rights issue, than you cant pick and choose which issues belong to the States and which issues you believe the Federal Government decrees. Why pick the gay marriage issue as a State Right but not abortion, the Right to Carry, etc. Hammer the RAT with this point and it will result in additional votes for W.

18 posted on 02/27/2004 8:02:00 AM PST by capydick ("it's time for America to wake up and smell the Kerry".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
I agree.
19 posted on 02/27/2004 8:03:04 AM PST by axel f
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
She looks even better in person.
20 posted on 02/27/2004 8:03:48 AM PST by axel f
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Ingraham says that this is a last resort given the abuse by the courts. Why are we going to the last resort and we havn't taken the first resorts yet? Those first resorts are impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.

The marriage amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.
21 posted on 02/27/2004 8:06:32 AM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Good girl!!!
22 posted on 02/27/2004 8:08:46 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: axel f
I'll bet she smells nice,too.
23 posted on 02/27/2004 8:11:40 AM PST by Redcoat LI ("If you're going to shoot,shoot,don't talk" Tuco BenedictoPacifico Juan Maria Ramirez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I'm listening to George Will on the Laura Ingraham Show right now, and he just pointed out that the most reckless SCOTUS justices of the last 40 years were appointed by Republicans: Warren, Brennan, Stevens, and Souter.
Scary.
10 -Sabertooth-


______________________________________


Made even scarier by Fed judges like the one who just ruled that DC's citizens had no RKBA's..

One wonders how many like him the pubbies appointed.

Republicans are appointing authoritarian socialists to the bench.. Democrats are appointing communitarian socialists..

Why is it surprising that socialism is winning?
24 posted on 02/27/2004 8:14:37 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
In 100 years (less, actually) the Roe v Wade decision will be seamlessly linked with the Dred Scott decision as examples of terrible court decisions that led to long periods of suffering in the US before a moral status quo was re-asserted.

If you are correct about this, then you can take this to the bank, too:

In 100 years, the Roe v. Wade decision will be portrayed in U.S. history books as part of a concerted effort by conservative, white, male Republicans to exploit women and control minority populations in this country.

The fact that unfettered access to abortion is now an official plank of the Democratic Party will never be revealed to future generations, as will the role of people like Jesse Jackson, the Black Congressional Caucus, the NAACP, etc. in supporting Roe v. Wade.

25 posted on 02/27/2004 8:15:59 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
Great points. Well said. Let's start a list of impeachment candidates.
26 posted on 02/27/2004 8:16:02 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: axel f
She's much shorter than I thought she would be.
27 posted on 02/27/2004 8:18:03 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
My only difference with her is in her use of the phrase "forward-thinking".

You are absolutely correct. Perhaps collectivist-thinking, statist-thinking, or socialistic thinking would be better.

28 posted on 02/27/2004 8:20:26 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
-Frank-


______________________________________


Well said..
It makes too much sense to have much of an impact here at FR, but it bears repeating, often..
29 posted on 02/27/2004 8:20:46 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
I vote YES.


30 posted on 02/27/2004 8:21:03 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
Nice Commentary - right the point.
31 posted on 02/27/2004 8:25:42 AM PST by Imagine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver
Ingraham is the most prepared, clever, and evenhanded talk show host out there. I would love to see her replace the rants of Hannity on FNC.
32 posted on 02/27/2004 8:29:13 AM PST by reademnweep (Watch this !! Hold my beer..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
President Bush should make it abundantly clear that this is a last resort given what the abuse by courts on the federal and state level.

It's not a last resort. Attempts at impeachment should come first.

33 posted on 02/27/2004 8:32:26 AM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Can you feel the pendulum swing? I can.

I'll feel the pendulum swing when a Republican controlled Senate can end a silly parliamentary trick like a filibuster.

34 posted on 02/27/2004 8:40:21 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
LOL! I didn't get to smell her. sigh
35 posted on 02/27/2004 8:48:54 AM PST by axel f
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
I like shorter, feisty women. But you're right, she is shorter than I thought she'd be too.
36 posted on 02/27/2004 8:50:01 AM PST by axel f
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: reademnweep
I didn't question Ingraham's abilities, although the few times I've tried to listen to her program she seems to pander to the left without taking them to task for their views. I heard her interview Robert Reich and all she could do is giggle and keep saying how much she liked him.

My only point was that she whines like a stuck pig caught in a mud hole, and that it's bad enough to turn listeners off. Of course, I could be wrong too, and if I am she will have a long career. The ratings numbers will tell the tale. Speaking of which, I also heard her berate a caller who commented about her whining. Ingraham came unglued and started calling the caller names. Really unprofessional, IMHO.
37 posted on 02/27/2004 9:03:09 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
I vote YES.

Motion carried,on to new business,the chair recognises the fat drunk from Massachusetts.
38 posted on 02/27/2004 9:05:12 AM PST by Redcoat LI ("If you're going to shoot,shoot,don't talk" Tuco BenedictoPacifico Juan Maria Ramirez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: capydick
IN some cases the feds pursue charges and verdicts, but only if it is a liberal cause .
39 posted on 02/27/2004 9:29:46 AM PST by douglas1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
So am I laying in bed the other night having this dream about me, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley in a hot tub, drinking margaritas and taking turns inhaling helium and reading from Al Frankens book in Al Frankens voice.

Laura gets up, asks who wants another margarita and as I gaze at her figure emerging from the bubbles, I am awakened by, "honey you will be late for work."



40 posted on 02/27/2004 9:33:43 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (60 Senate seats changes the world!! Bury Kerry in 04!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: All
Coulter or Ingraham?

I vote for Ingraham.

41 posted on 02/27/2004 9:35:40 AM PST by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
President Bush and his supporters have to make clear that the fight over the gay marriage amendment is not a fight about gays, not a fight about marriage, but a fight about the power of the Courts.

bump

42 posted on 02/27/2004 9:38:15 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
Ingraham. She looks healthier than Ann.
43 posted on 02/27/2004 10:48:31 AM PST by Rocky Mountain High
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
"From time to time in our history, Presidents have had to challenge the Supreme Court. Lincoln openly disagreed with the Court's Dred Scott Decision. FDR threatened to pack the Court because of its New Deal decisions. These presidents played a vital role in preventing the Court from thwarting the legitimate wishes of the American people."

The Dred Scott decision was based on the "full faith" clause which the Left is now using to push gay "marriage". Maybe someone should tell them that.

But FDR tried to pack the Court because the Court kept ruling New Deal programs unconstitutional, which they were. Sorry, Laura, that one won't fly.

44 posted on 02/27/2004 1:03:29 PM PST by Chairman Fred (@mousiedung.commie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Whatever you do don't go to this site www.rachelmarsden.com and click on the link for the Babes of the G.O.P calendar.

You've been warned.
45 posted on 02/27/2004 2:35:34 PM PST by Redcoat LI ("If you're going to shoot,shoot,don't talk" Tuco BenedictoPacifico Juan Maria Ramirez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
aura, hands down. No contest. Ann needs a few hearty meals. Plus, I hear she smokes and cusses like a sailor.

Of couse, as I am happily married, this is all theoretical.
46 posted on 02/27/2004 6:52:21 PM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Should say "Laura," not "aura."

A tougher question would be: Ingraham or Malkin?
47 posted on 02/27/2004 6:54:17 PM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS


Go get'em Laura!!!
48 posted on 02/27/2004 6:56:01 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
The Anne Coulter doctrine of posting a picture on the thread needs to be extended to Laura Ingraham. Show of hands if you agree.

Absolutely. I wish I had a pic of her appearance yesterday on Hardball w/ Chrissy Matthews. She looked FABULOUS (she combed her hair!)

49 posted on 03/02/2004 5:44:00 PM PST by NYC Republican ("LIE after LIE after LIE after LIE" - TK. GOP Reaction? {{{{{crickets}}}}})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
Should say "Laura," not "aura." A tougher question would be: Ingraham or Malkin?

Or... Kelly-Anne Conway (form. Fitzpatrick).

50 posted on 03/02/2004 5:44:54 PM PST by NYC Republican ("LIE after LIE after LIE after LIE" - TK. GOP Reaction? {{{{{crickets}}}}})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 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