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

Skip to comments.

Judicial Activism = Judicial Tyranny
NewsMax ^ | 1/6/05 | Phil Brennan

Posted on 01/06/2005 6:10:07 PM PST by wagglebee

I don't want to pick a fight with Chief Justice William Rehnquist for whom I have great admiration, especially when he's gravely ill, but he just wrote something with which I cannot agree.

So here goes.

In his traditional year-end report on the federal courts Justice Rehnquist wrote that judges must be protected from political threats, including those from conservative Republicans who maintain that "judicial activists" should be impeached and removed from office.

"The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction," the chief justice wrote.

The public, the press and politicians are certainly free to criticize judges, Rehnquist added, but politicians cross the line when they try to punish or impeach judges for decisions they do not agree with.

Fair enough, but what bothered me was his attitude that judicial activism deserved some kind of heavenly writ placing judicial opinions, no matter how wrong-headed, beyond reproach. What he seems to be saying is no matter what the public wants in any particular matter a judge's opinions prevail even when the opinions are based on nothing but the judge's personal far-left preferences instead of constitutional law.

Over the years we have had non-elected federal judges usurping the authority of elected local school boards on the most specious of grounds, involving themselves in the actual supervision of school districts. There's not a damn thing in the Constitution that confers such authority on their honors, but they get away with it nonetheless.

In Kansas the State Supreme Court has just ruled that the state legislature has failed to provide adequate funding for the state's public school system. and ordered it to come up with more money for the schools, or else.

Lawmakers were given until April 12 to fix the problem of insufficient funding or face court action but did not specify how much more money is needed to adequately fund schools..

"Its failure to act in the face of this opinion would require this court to direct action to be taken to carry out that responsibility," the court ruled. "The Legislature, by its action or lack thereof in the 2005 session, will dictate what form our final remedy, if necessary, will take."

Their logic for this usurpation of the legislative power of the elected officials: The state's Constitution requires that the Legislature make "suitable provision" for financing education. The court ruled that, in commissioning a consultant's study on school finance, the Legislature defined suitable, then ignored the consultant's recommendations to increase funding.

Pardon me, but isn't that what the voters elected them to do - to decide what is suitable? If the public wants to spend more money, or for that matter less money, on schools isn't it up to their elected representatives to take care of the matter? Nobody elected the justices to decide how much funding is enough. Frankly, it's none of their damned business.

In recent weeks the nation has endured a raging controversy over the celebration of Christmas. In a nation where about 90 percent of the people are Christian, we have been treated to a spectacle of having hordes of lame-brained school and municipal officials taking a pick axe to our Constitutionally ordained right to practice our faith in the public square.

The anti-Christmas barbarian hordes hide their true aim - to drive Christians into the catacombs - under the guise of protecting the doctrine of separation of church and state - a doctrine that does not exist in the United States Constitution or anywhere else but in the fevered minds of the almighty justices of the federal judiciary.

They simply invented it, using the prohibition of establishing a national church to contradict the second part of the First Amendment: that Congress shall enact no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in or out of the public square.

So when did this miraculous wall of separation between church and state get built, and who built it? As David Limbaugh wrote in his extraordinary book "Persecution" the architect and builder was Justice Hugo Black who wrote in the majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education that the "First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Clearly, it was not the founding fathers who used the First Amendment to build the wall. It was Hugo Black.

This is judicial activism of the worst kind - activism based on nothing but the warped opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court and a whole slew of out-of-control tyrants in black robes who have followed in his wake.

Black's opinion is fiction. It has no basis in the Constitution and his fellow justices and those who followed them know that. And they should be roundly condemned for not saying so in unmistakable terms and acting on that belief.

Yet as David Limbaugh points out, the Everson decision, in the words of Professor Daniel Dreisbach "laid the foundation" for later First Amendment cases involving released time, school prayer, and "the continuing controversy over religious expression and instruction in the public schools" and other lines of cases.

In his article "We the Judges: How Judicial Activists Rewrite the Constitution," CBN.com Congressional Correspondent David Brody wrote that "there is a real and tangible concern about what is being called 'judicial activism.' Many conservative legal scholars say judges today are making absurd rulings based more on their liberal thinking than what the Constitution actually says."

"How did we get to this point and what can be done about it?" he asked, explaining, "In the beginning, our Constitution reads, 'We the people.' But the way the courts have been ruling recently, many legal scholars say it could very easily read 'We the judges.' "

He reports that Judge Robert Bork has said, "The problem is very grave because what you've done is take away democratic control of the culture."

Bork , who has led a campaign against judicial activism, believes that too many judges are making laws instead of interpreting them, and that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. He explained that "[The judges] are steadily enacting what you might call the liberal cultural agenda."

For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that Americans basically have a constitutional right to commit sodomy - a right judicial experts say can not be found anywhere in the Constitution.

Moreover, Brody notes that the one case that still has legal scholars scratching their heads is the decision 30 years ago to legalize abortion.

Of that atrocious opinion Bork said , "Fifty-eight pages: no legal argument in it. You learn all about the Egyptians practice with respect to abortion. You learn about the English common law with respect to abortion. You learn about what the opinions of the American Medical Association are, and all of a sudden, bang, there's a right to abortion."

So what does Justice Rehnquist say is a remedy for this curse of judicial activism? Why, simply challenge misguided rulings by appealing them a higher court. "The appellate process provides a remedy" for those who believe a judge has erred, he said.

He ignores the fact that those "higher" courts, including his own, are loaded with judicial activists.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: judicialactivism; leftistjudges; rehnquist; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
I'm glad that Brennan wrote this. I was thinking when I read reports of what Rehnquist wrote that perhaps his mind has been affected by his illness.
1 posted on 01/06/2005 6:10:08 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Pick the fight - this is an easy one.

If judges cannot respect the separation of powers they MUST be impeached.


2 posted on 01/06/2005 6:17:45 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I noticed you forgot the right to bear arms. It's coming from this liberal controled court, they will soon outlaw citizens right to bear arms. Yes, impeachment is a cure.
3 posted on 01/06/2005 6:18:32 PM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

I didn't forget the Second Amendment. There are just too damn many areas to even get started.


4 posted on 01/06/2005 6:19:59 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only thing Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

" I was thinking when I read reports of what Rehnquist wrote that perhaps his mind has been affected by his illness."

I agree and that was my first thought. This is very similar to what happened with Barry Goldwater when he was real old.

The MSM could make a case that he's not fit to still be on the court - but the sure as heck should not be publicizing something like this, as it deviates from everything Rehnquist stood for.


5 posted on 01/06/2005 6:20:00 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
No money given = no FR.

Please consider helping to end the annoying Freepathon soon.

6 posted on 01/06/2005 6:20:58 PM PST by don-o (Stop Freeploading. Do the right thing and become a Monthly Donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

crazy or traitor - it doesn't matter - he MUST go!

He is too dangerous to our liberty and our country to leave the fool there.


7 posted on 01/06/2005 6:23:02 PM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL
I've read a lot of what Rehnquist has written over the course of his career, and this bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything he has ever said before.
8 posted on 01/06/2005 6:23:36 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only thing Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Judge Scalia said it all when the Sodomy decision was handed down. The Supreme Court Justices were interpreting the American Laws using European Standards. This is against the Constitution and American Law. The Supreme Court Justices regularly attend their Judicial Meetings in Europe with their European Colleges. They they come back here and apply that CRAP ti our laws to determine the CONSTITUTIONALITY!! We fought a Revolution over this European Crap being forced down our throats and on our backs. Make you kind of wonder what they are planning!!
9 posted on 01/06/2005 6:26:46 PM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Sit nomen Dómini benedíctum,Ex hoc nunc, et usque in sæculum! per ómnia saecula saeculórum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"I've read a lot of what Rehnquist has written over the course of his career, and this bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything he has ever said before."

I haven't read much of his work, but judging by his decisions, he's been an excellent justice. Like I implied, if the media wants to quote this garbage, they should do it in the context that he is no longer fit for the court - rather than portraying this as a serious insight.

The thing is, the MSM clearly knows that Rehnquist has problems and is probably unfit - yet they deceive the public on it. This bugs me much more than even their usual bias - for it no different (to me at least) than the media making up totally fictitious quotes from people, and then telling us that they've had a change of heart.
10 posted on 01/06/2005 6:29:49 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction...

Right, the operative word being "fairly". Renqhuist appears to believe that the only improper judicial behavior is that of corruption.


11 posted on 01/06/2005 6:30:24 PM PST by Sterrins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Now, please?!
12 posted on 01/06/2005 6:33:14 PM PST by Brad’s Gramma (Proud Patriots dot ORG!!! Operation Valentine's Day!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

If I had to guess, I would say that Rehnquist has already informed Bush and the other justices of his retirement, they are just waiting until after the inauguration to announce it. It will be interesting to see who swears Bush in two weeks from now. And if I am correct, this also means that Gonzales WILL NOT be appointed to the Supreme Court.


13 posted on 01/06/2005 6:35:42 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only thing Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Agree with everything. I think Rehnquist was waiting to make sure that nothing came of the election challenges. He knows that he must leave.


14 posted on 01/06/2005 6:37:09 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; P-Marlowe; aristeides
A lifetime, unelected judiciary, in my opinion, is an idea that's proven wrong. It sits with the divine right of kings as something that had it's day, but its day has proven it wrong-headed.

While judges are useful, they clearly need to be rotated....I'd say on the same schedule as senators. If we've ever had demonstration of Lord Acton's famous quote, we've surely had it in democracy's oligarchy, it's unbridled, unreined, UNELECTED, UNDEMOCRATIC judiciary.

15 posted on 01/06/2005 6:38:21 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The problem is that a "rotating" federal judiciary would make the judges even MORE PRONE to making rulings based on political ideals. The purpose of a lifetime appointment is to take politics out of their rulings; however, the activist judges use their position to become even more political. I think the real answer is to impeach judges who blatantly disregard the law simply to advance an agenda.


16 posted on 01/06/2005 6:47:26 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only thing Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"The problem is that a "rotating" federal judiciary would make the judges even MORE PRONE to making rulings based on political ideals."

I tend to agree. I don't see any use in replacing one bad batch of judges with another. The impeachment hurdle is VERY high (I think 2/3's of the Senate). We probably won't have much luck in that area until we finally finish off the Dems, and some more responsible political party takes their place.
17 posted on 01/06/2005 6:56:44 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I'm wondering, given such abominations as the 9th circuit, if there's not a role sometime soon for judicial reConstructionists. Beyond constructionists or objectivists, judges who who will always reject stare decisis in favor of a constructionist interpretation.

If the activism goes on much longer, like termites in the center-beam, it's going to corrupt the edifice of law in its entirety, and will need massive upheaval to return to a semblance of what it was intended to be. The short-term shake-up inherent in a full reevaluation of non-constructed opinions will prevent a longer, langorious decline.

Thomas, I think, leans in this direction, although not so stridently. Maybe we really _do_ need more of those 'conservative' judges. I bet they'll be called 'reactionary', because it's certainly that - a reaction to the dumb-ass things activists have done to date.


18 posted on 01/06/2005 6:58:43 PM PST by jrpascucci (Terrorae delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
In my mind, I have acknowledged that they are partisan politicians, and that the power is too great to be withstood by humans.

Rotating them via election recognizes that they are partisan. It provides a means for regular, thoughtful course correction.

19 posted on 01/06/2005 7:01:44 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Hell, we couldn't even impeach a sexual predator when even his supporters were acknowledging he committed perjury.


20 posted on 01/06/2005 7:01:44 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only thing Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Agreed - that's why the Dems have to be disposed of (politically) prior to cleaning up the courts.


21 posted on 01/06/2005 7:03:05 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If judges want to engage in political chicanery, let them run for political office. Otherwise, keep the hell out of politics and interpret the law as written and intended, period.


22 posted on 01/06/2005 7:05:23 PM PST by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

If we elected federal judges, the leftists on the west coast would basically be able to insure that the 9th Circuit stays activist forever. At least now we have a chance that Bush or another Republican would have the opportunity to appoint a law-abiding judge to that court.


23 posted on 01/06/2005 7:06:10 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only thing Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I agree that careful thought would have to go into the design of courts, their regions of coverage, and how they are elected.


24 posted on 01/06/2005 7:09:18 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bump for later.


25 posted on 01/06/2005 7:16:53 PM PST by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ursus arctos horribilis

Well arent many judges across the country also politicians ? They have to go out and get votes and they declare a party affiliation.....

how can you draw a construction from the founders when the very basis of the question had not existed at that time- stuff like cloning, or wiretaps, or software patents?

What happens when legislatures overstep their bounds?

Who is to defend the people then ?

I dont like activist judges either, but there are bad laws written all the time....

And what about way-right judges with the same bad attitudes ? I mean, there are those who think that women should have to obey men, no fun on Sundays, etc.

The right to bear arms will never, ever, ever, ever be taken away from Americans.


26 posted on 01/06/2005 7:45:03 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald

"The right to bear arms will never, ever, ever, ever be taken away from Americans."

I believe that long ago an activist Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment applies only to state militias.

Don't think for a moment that our right to own guns will be protected without our vigilence. There are many, many, people who cannot stand that right, and to heck with the Constitution for them.


27 posted on 01/06/2005 7:52:57 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Im not sure we should call all jurists with opinions that we disagree with "activists"- I mean, a ruling has to DO something, so EVERY judge is activist in a way....

While I agree that we must never stop protecting our right to bear arms, I'm comfortable that there is no way Americans will let a minority overhaul that right- even the leftys that I know agree with that....


28 posted on 01/06/2005 8:14:36 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald
In a legal, especially Supreme Court, sense "activist" has a VERY clear meaning. It means finding something in the Constitution that simply doesn't exist, such as the RIGHT to an abortion, or the RIGHT to gay marriage.

On the other hand, there certainly can be conservative activists on the Supreme Court. If the court, for example, found a line in the Constitution and used it to OUTLAW abortion, I would be just as enraged.

The proper answer to abortion is real clear - let the states decide, one-by-one, and the feds should only be involved if it involves their jurisdiction, such as military bases.
29 posted on 01/06/2005 8:27:37 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BobL

I'm not that clear about the greater legitimacy of the states over the federal laws/courts. Could you not extend that to each county, or even municipality? Is the locus of rightness greater if the rules are more and more local ? The events of 1859-1865 showed that some disagreements can be so strong that only the largest authority may properly prevail. Lincoln's Cooper Union speech is probably the best stated case ever regarding what we must do when we believe ourselves to be right...


30 posted on 01/06/2005 8:34:54 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald

I can't match your history - although I do believe that Cooper Union still doesn't charge tuition (big endowment).

Slavery was an exception, and I think we were well on our way to extinguishing it without help from activist judges. Same with civil rights.

My question is regarding NOW: What issues is our elected government behaving so immoral on that the courts need to step in? (I hope that I don't get deluged)


31 posted on 01/06/2005 8:40:49 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The public, the press and politicians are certainly free to criticize judges, Rehnquist added, but politicians cross the line when they try to punish or impeach judges for decisions they do not agree with.

That's true, unless the judge's decisions clearly violate the constitution. Judicial privilege should never be allowed to degenerate into judicial arrogance. If it does, then that judge needs to be removed.
32 posted on 01/06/2005 8:46:44 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald
I'm not that clear about the greater legitimacy of the states over the federal laws/courts.

The powers granted to the federal government by the constitution are few and limited. All other powers belong to the states, so long as they don't violate the constitution.
33 posted on 01/06/2005 8:54:12 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: superskunk
"...but politicians cross the line when they try to punish or impeach judges for decisions they do not agree with."

I don't agree - impeachment is a VERY high hurdle to overcome, as we all learned last decade. If a judge makes a decision (or decisions) that is so egregious, that judge should be removed for cause. I remember a federal judge in Pennsylvania who let a big-time drug dealer off scott-free because he thought cops tend to racially profile - no other reason. Clinton tried to elevate him to Circuit Court - but the Republicans pointed to that decision and he withdrew.
34 posted on 01/06/2005 8:55:47 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BobL

My history is not all that strong, but I'm into Lincolnalia because it was such an extraordinary time. Dont think Slavery was on its way out- it most certainly was not. If hundreds of thousands of Americans would fight to the death for it, it was not going anywhere....

In fact, the last four years have kind of freaked me out because the Red/Blue map looks awfully like the 1861 map of America...both sides are certain they are right....

And although I can imagine terrorists hurting us real bad, they can't ever win- they can't destroy America no matter what (although we should not forget that Russia and China could really do a number on us with nukes)

But if we slip into fear driven Totalitarianism, we could do it to ourselves.

I really have to disagree with most posters on FR that torture is wrong: we didnt have to torture nazis, we didnt have to torture Japanese, and we didnt have to torture Russians during the cold war, and those were all terrible threats too.

The case where we get a guy who really knows where a hidden ticking nuke is is not really gonna happen, and it has nothing to do with running everyday torture houses.

Speaking of, thats what our jail system is in many cases, and its our own people, many cases for just drugs, which is another moral issue... but dont get me started...


35 posted on 01/06/2005 8:56:54 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: superskunk

you forgot the very important second clause to the line about the powers going to the states- that they also devolve to the people, hence my question about the locality issue.....


36 posted on 01/06/2005 9:00:14 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald

You've worn me out - we'll have to just disagree.

Take care.


37 posted on 01/06/2005 9:01:32 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Funny, thats what my wife says too ;-)


38 posted on 01/06/2005 9:04:36 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BobL
I agree that impeachment is a difficult process, but I don't think it should be avoided at all costs. I think that if a judges decisions show an overall disregard for the constitution, we should at least try to remove them.
39 posted on 01/06/2005 9:20:11 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: superskunk

I agree - my point being that if there are enough votes to impeach, then the judge should be impeached, since he obviously ticked off a lot of people in a very important way.


40 posted on 01/06/2005 9:26:32 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald
I'm obviously not a constitutional scholar, but it appears that the powers do devolve to the people or their elected state government. As I understand it, the state is supposed to represent the interests of the people; and all county and municipal governments are subordinate to the state. If I've misrepresented the meaning of the tenth amendment, I would welcome the input of anyone with a better understanding of constitutional law. In fact, I would consider it a service.
41 posted on 01/06/2005 9:32:06 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BobL
If we take it a step further, I think that a very real threat of impeachment would encourage judges to always rule in a manner consistent with the constitution instead of bending it to their will.
42 posted on 01/06/2005 9:36:34 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: superskunk
Exactly - there has to be some accountability. Even the President has that (i.e., re-election and impeachment). These judges definitely need to be brought down a couple of notches.
43 posted on 01/06/2005 9:38:12 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BobL

I agree. Judicial protection was implemented to grant judges protection from ever shifting public opinion so that they could concern themselves with matters of law. However, we've seen how this type of power with complete impunity breeds arrogance, and gives way to judicial activism. We, as a people, must pursue these violators of the constitution. We need to show them that legislating from the bench will not be tolerated and will lead to their removal.


44 posted on 01/06/2005 9:45:19 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: superskunk

Im not a scholar or lawyer either, but it seems to me that the civil war settled that the federal law must prevail, that the states may not overrule that authority.

It also seems to me that the founders very clearly felt that "rights" mean anything that a person wants to do that does not harm his fellows is allowed. So in fact, Judges can't "find" or "make" NEW rights- they can only decide that some actions harm others and thus must be controlled.

I know others think that we only have those rights defined by the Constitution, but I think thats ass-backwards--


45 posted on 01/06/2005 9:46:54 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

We have seen the Judiciary display a flagrant disregard for the ideals laid down in the Constitution, and their arrogance now has them proclaiming themselves the overseer of Congress, and our Congress does nothing about it.

That some of the present day justices should be impeached goes without question, but that alone will not stop a future justice from becoming a rogue.

The terms of all federal judges should have limits. No human being should be given a lifetime appointment to a position of power without accountablity. The temptation is too great, and we've seen its results.


46 posted on 01/06/2005 9:52:05 PM PST by Noachian (A Democrat, by definition, is a Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald
I agree. The constitution was created to guarantee rights, not to limit them. The constitution does not specify a right to go rock climbing, but I enjoy doing it occasionally. (I think it's part of that pursuit of happiness thing.)

It's clear that the states do not have the right to succeed from the union, wage war against the federal government, or ignore federal law. Having said that, it is also clear the federal government was never meant to impose itself so heavily on the states or the citizens. There's no easy solution, but I would welcome a congress that agreed to repeal some laws and unburden us a little.
47 posted on 01/06/2005 9:58:27 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; All
Please see: Confronting the Imperial Judiciary (Pro-Family & Pro-Life)
48 posted on 01/06/2005 10:23:28 PM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of The Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Hell, we couldn't even impeach a sexual predator.."

Klinton was impeached just not convicted.

Big problem with that impeachment; wrong issue.

He should have been impeached for his treasonous involvement in the ChinaGate scandal. That was a real issue.

49 posted on 01/07/2005 6:42:44 AM PST by Designer (I don't need a tagline; you know who I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald

"The right to bear arms will never, ever, ever, ever be taken away from Americans"

You will be amazed at the 99.9% rollover and drop their pants rate when the critical mass moment of push comes to shove of confiscation.


50 posted on 01/07/2005 9:18:15 AM PST by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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