Posted on 04/04/2005 7:32:23 PM PDT by Crackingham
Someone involved in a divorce action might be angered by the lordly manner of some judges. Given that juries are seldom in the picture these days, the guy sees the judge as both judge and jury.
There's one other factor in this. When a single judge issues a ruling, there is nobody else standing there alongside. Congress can always blame the other party, some bureaucrat in a large office building can blame the "system" or the "rules", but a one-judge court doesn't have a lot of options.
Instead of blaming judges for violence, why not take them out of power. I'm waiting for impeachments for federal judges and active campaigns against bad state judges.
It's put up or shut up time.
I wonder what political decisions drove Brian Nichols to shoot up the Courthouse in Atlanta /sarcasm.
If this quote is accurate and in context, Cornyn is a dumbass, and plays right into the hands of the Democrats who would love to paint the GOP as extremist in the 2006 election.
Why attack judges for doing their job, i.e. applying the laws of the land?
If you don't like a law, campaign to change it.
What next, more 'understanding' for cop killers?
If you want political violence, the best way to achieve it is through tyranny.
Tyranny which doesn't eventually result in political violence just shows that the abused population isn't capable of governing themselves. Tyrants shouldn't be able to sleep well at night.
There's an old tired refrain that smells like the horse hockey that it's made from.
There's a reason that they call the McCain-Feingold abortion "The Incumbency Protection Act".
"Constituent" is another name for "peasant", fellow peasant. If you want to know what Congress thinks of our opinion on laws we don't like, examine the history of the AMT. All they have to do is index the law, and it's fixed. Why do you suppose they haven't? ;-)
The only thing to be done in those cases is to play swap the judge, and to keep on swapping until you have someone in place who understands what's going on.
BTW, you don't have to kill them to remove them although it might be a good idea to exile or imprison them to keep them from trying to stir the pot from the outside.
"It's the part about judges deciding that certain laws simply cannot be enacted"
What judges have not been enacting laws? The only time they do that is when a law is unconstitutional, and things can be appealed, right up to the SCOTUS is necessary. If you're talking about the Terri case, what law was not enacted, and why do you think the SCOTUS declined to hear the case and so enforce the mystery [to me] law?
I guess your buddy jm hasn't been paying attention long enough to understand that the "law" in this country is one big Liberal smorgasbord where they pick the dishes that they like, and leave the ones they don't like... ;-)
You can use a weaselword like "unconstitutional" if you wish, but facts are facts.
Can you cite a specific law that wasn't enacted?
In the Terri case they were following the laws, due process was done - and seen to be done - but people were not happy with the result.
And 'unconstitional' is hardly a weasel word. The Constitution is what elected officials swear to uphold. Trash that and what's left of the US?
In these threads given the number of times that fact has been discussed I think it's fair to assume everybody knows about it. That way we don't rehash SOS.
There was concern about it being a law affecting a single person, as if that is a real issue. Congress and legislatures everywhere regularly pass "private bills" that affect only one person, and that's never a reason for such a law to be found "unconstitutional".
When it comes to the Florida supreme court you are, of course, defending the indefensible!
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.