Is it time for a March on the SCOTUS and the Judiciary and the Senate?

Free Republic | March 2, 2005 | Jim Robinson

[Congressman Billybob]

Fine piece of work. Maybe you are a bit too ambitious in your plan. It is always best to overshoot than undershoot in your planning. I've pinged Jim Robinson so he'll see your proposals right away.

If asked, I'll be honored to give the last speech in front of the Supreme Court. The last line of that is ready now. It is: "Mr. President, tear down this Court!"

John / Billybob

[M Kehoe]

Thanks for the ping.

Jim, maybe the time is now. Look what's happening in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palis, etc.. To live in historic times sometimes requires historic deeds. I hope SCOTUS understands their place in the separation of powers. Otherwise, it could get nasty.

5.56mm

[1_Inch_Group]

Ooooooh. Yeah..

Wouldn't want anyone to think we were a bunch of vigilantes or anything.

Let me know when you get back though.

*yawn*

[newfarm4000n]

prefer Sacalia because when he writes a dissent it makes total sense to even the most common person.

True.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Marching on the SCOTUS won't accomplish anything. They have lifetime tenure and couldn't care less what the people think of them.

The Senators on the other hand still have to answer to the people to some degree. They're the ones we really have to lean on. We need to let them know that if Bush's nominees don't get voted they'll get booted out of office just like Tom Daschle was. And I'm talking about both Democrats and fake Rerpublicans like Arlen Specter and his ilk.

Ultimately we must have a Congress which will stand up on its hind legs and take responsibility. Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the court, and Congress can impeach inJustice Kennedy for imposing laws on us that the Congress didn't vote for and the president didn't sign.

Congress can impeach a judge as easy as it can impeach a president for going to court and lying to get a suit against his own person wrongly decided in his favor. Senate may not convict, but perhaps we need to see how many judges are content to boast that they beat a rap with a majority in the House and Senate on record that they should not remain in office.

Finally, at least one branch of the government must stand up the the Democratic Establishment of reporters and the judges and politicians who toady up to journalism and in turn get political cover from journalists. I am one who believes that broadcast journalism is illegitimate because the government created broadcasting (as opposed to Marconi's mere "radio transmission") by allocating broadcasting "rights" to a few and censoring all the rest of us.

The fundamental fact of politics is that journalism is politics. If you assume that, much of politics becomes explicable which is completely confounding if you make the contrary assumption that journalism is public service. The First Amendment is journalism's charter of freedom. Freedom to behave politically. If journalism is free to be political, the only natural thing to expect is that it will be political. If counter to all reason you assume that journalism is public service, you are confronted with 60 Minutes II launching utterly tendentious assault on the Republican Party and George W. Bush last October. And you have no explanation - not for the tendentiousness of CBS and not for the fact that mainstream journalism would not tell the simple declarative truth that the "memos" upon which CBS relied were rather crude forgeries.

Fine. The New York Times or any other newspaper - private enterprises under no obligation to eschew political tendentiousness - are protected under the First Amendment. But CBS and any other broadcaster is given license to broadcast in bands government censorship of we-the-people on the claim that in fact they are performing public service with which your having an equal right to transmit would interfere. The broadcasters behave politically like the rest of journalism, and like the rest of journalism they compound the impudence by claiming to be "objective." And yet if the First Amendment applies to broadcasting by CBS it also applies to broadcasting by you or me. If you really believe that the First Amendment applies to broadcasting, why are you not broadcasting yourself? Under the Constitution you have the same rights as anyone else!

[HarleyLady27]

I would love to be there, and hubby will come to, let me know when so I can get my Sentors, Santorum and Spector and Congressman, Don Sherwood there at the rally, I think the Senators should be here to....and I'll email some news outlets and let them know when we are going to be there and ask them to pass the word and show up....

[rant57]

Kin ah bring ma 357 ?

[Gilbo_3]

Spread the word far and wide, include EVRYONE that has a beef with the congress and court, set a date and I'm there.

[Teplukin]

Good luck and Godspeed.

But you must know that if you go to DC, there is no turning back. You are crossing the Rubicon, and battle will be joined the moment you unfurl your banners & hoist your flags. At that point, hordes of Braless, menstruating left-wing feminists will attack you in waves.

So I ask you Gilbo - are you willing to stand your ground when the enemy presses you? When the enemy unleashes volley upon volley upon your ranks? Will you not flinch, nor bat your eye?

I want you to know that if you perish on the barricades in DC, in hand-to-hand combat with PETA activists, we will ensure that you are buried with the following inscription.

"Stranger, go tell the Spartans that we lie here in obedience to their laws"

Good luck Gilb. May God look with mercy upon you, his willing servant of righteousness

[Les_Miserables]

Based on the pitifully small number of Freepers singed up in the poll for this item, I expect the volleys will be short and the bras will be few. JimRob seems to have concluded the same as he has not returned to the thread to encourage, withdraw, or set a date.

Nothing to see here, move on....Go quietly to your homes..await further directions.

[lilylangtree]

I'm with you in spirit. A huge overhaul in SCOTUS is required.

[TAdams8591]

Agreed.

[rdb3]

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.........The best part of The Constitution.

The Supreme Court shall find no flaw........Should be in there somewhere........

---

I'm surprised that no one replied to your post here. You may have posted in jest, but you're on to something!

Think about it. Article III , Sections 1 & 2 of the Constitution provide for the functions of the Supreme Court, and the inferior courts. Only the Supreme Court is Constitutionally mandated. The inferior courts are not.

But let's get back to what you said. "The Supreme Court shall find no law..." That's actually in the Constitution! Take a look at Article III, Section 2. It explicitly states:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...

There you have it. The Supreme Court's power only extends to matters of laws on the books, not the Justices opinion(s).

To rectify this situation, and to prevent federal courts from legislating as opposed to interpreting, Amendment XVIII should be added to our Constitution which says exactly what you wrote: "The Supreme Court shall find no law".

Where would I be wrong?

[Dead Corpse]

Let me know when and where. I'll take as much vacation time as necessary.