Replies

I couldn't agree with you more that our system is badly broken, and especially that judges and justices who rely on foreign law to make decisions should be impeached forthwith. However, I don't like the idea of a mere law being passed to deal with this. Laws can be changed too easily, and I greatly fear setting a precedent of letting the Congress tinker so easily with the judiciary. I prefer an Amendment, so that the people of the entire country fire a shot across the judiciary's bow.

We are coming to a breakpoint in our society. Listening to talk radio and surfing the Internet, I get the impression that many people are getting VERY sick and tired of the rulings that are entirely out of synch with our traditions, current law and the current public mood, rulings which are aimed at nothing less than the destruction of our country as we know it.

The decision on the Pledge of Allegiance case that will be heard today should be interesting. If the ruling goes against the Pledge as it is, this will KILL the Dems' chances in November - the courts will finally be revealed to be out of control for even the dullest knives in the drawer, and they'll be motivated to vote for people who will allow strict constructionists to be appointed and confirmed.

and I greatly fear setting a precedent of letting the Congress tinker so easily with the judiciary.
This would by no means the first time that the Congress would be removing the judiciaries jurisdiction. I suppose our view differers in that I consider it the Congresses job to keep the judicial branch in line, as I believe the founders intended. The Judicial branch is appointed not elected, and as such was intended to be the weakest of the three branches. I would not consider it "tinkering" to carry out provisions that are clearly within their Constitutional authorization.

If the congress removes jurisdiction from the federal courts, it does not mean that we are without remedy. It simply means that the states would be the highest area of legal recourse.
I feel much more comfortable relying on the individual states to determine such issues than introducing any mention of marriage in the Constitution.
A point of historical reference would be the Danbury (sp) Baptist associations objections to the 1st amendments mention of religion in the Constitution. They objected not because of what the intent of the amendment was, but what the future ramifications would be of even mentioning religion in the constitution. They feared that one day we would end up just like we did, with the SCOTUS meddling in matters of religion.

I believed that if we had an educated electoriate who would think for themselves instead of picking one of the two flocks to follow (Dem. Repub.), we could begin requiring the Congress to do its job. That I believe would be a "shot across the bow" that would be much more effective to control the judiciary than having to address them issue by issue.

As I said in another post, I'm not 100% opposed to the amendment, I just don't think it is the best way to fix the problem.
If we do pass an amendment (I don't think it would ever pass), we will be simply addressing a symptom instead of fixing the problem. (in my opinion)