Judicial Activism = Judicial Tyranny

NewsMax ^ | 1/6/05 | Phil Brennan

[superskunk]

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.

[superskunk]

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.

[BobL]

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.

[superskunk]

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.

[Phatnbald]

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--

[Noachian]

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.

[superskunk]

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.

[cpforlife.org]

Please see: Confronting the Imperial Judiciary (Pro-Family & Pro-Life)

[Designer]

"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.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"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.

[Phatnbald]

My tagline says it all

[weegee]

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.

The only difference between a law against prostitution and extramarital fornication (unmarried or adultery) is the money. Both are just as likely to transfer disease (if this is your standard for "harming another").

Were there sex laws back at the founding of this country? Did Thomas Jefferson ever weigh in?

We've seen the laws against "fornication" get repealed but not so against prostitution and the Supreme Court has said that their pro-same sex sodomy decision did not open the door for declaring laws against prostitution or recreational drug use unconstitutional.

These are the problems of an activist court not applying a consistent ruling in a decision.

[Phatnbald]

Im not sure how I feel about the state of jurisprudence at the time of the founding v. how it is construed today. I also am not too sure that preventing disease is enough of an issue to make banning drug use, polygamy, or prostitution constitutional I think all three can be done without undue risk to others and thus probably should not be controlled by the state. But that's just my opinion, and everyone has one....