Skip to comments.Just the Beginning(liberal hysteria: the end of the Republic with Owen and Brown)
Posted on 05/23/2005 7:07:07 AM PDT by marylandrepub1
Stripping Senate Democrats of their right to filibuster judicial nominees is a prelude to a broader assault on the judiciary known as court stripping.
What Shelby and his backers are really after is gay marriage. If the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 were law, the Massachusetts Supreme Court could not have ruled that two people of the same sex can marry. Theyre doing in a sense what Iraq is trying to do, says Lichtman, make religious law supreme and not reviewable by any court, least of all the Supreme Court. She adds that while Jews have to speak up, along with Muslims and Buddhists, this is a fight within Christianity because it refers to an orthodoxy and a very new and strict construction of the Bible that trumps everything else, including civil law.
This is dangerous business when an inflamed minority, the religious right, demands the ouster of any judge that doesnt rule their way. The framers intended the judiciary to serve as a check on power, which is why judges are appointed for life, and once they ascend theyre supposed to be protected from the political process. Republicans say all they want is a simple up-and-down vote, but the Founding Fathers were worried about the abuse of power. Sixty votes forces a consensus. The Electoral College is a brake on popular will. This is a constitutional democracy, not winner takes all. Otherwise, George W. Bush wouldnt have prevailed in 2000.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Now lets see, in 2000 Bush doesn't have the right to have his appointees voted on because he stole/lost the election. In 2005 he doesn't have the right to have his appointees voted on because he won 2 consecutive Senate elections and the 2004 presidential election and now the minority (ie loser) party gets to decide who gets appointed. Anything else is a threat to the constitution and judicial independence. (Anybody follow this??) How about those emails and meetings with NOW and Planned Parenthood in 2002 telling Democratic Senators to hold up judicial appointments, which they did??? Not a threat to judicial independence.??
Next, after liberal justices inventing constitutional rights to gay marriage, homo- sodomy, welfare, abortion, right to kill your wife if she is ill, to discriminate based on race and sex if its the right sex and race, to commit murder (if under 18), to not be offended by the 10 commandments, or the pledge of allegiance, adding rights of foreign terrorists to a court trial (its endless):::suddenly Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown are going to turn this country into a religious dictatorship. Well Eleanor, serves you libs right for turning the courts into just another unelected branch of government. Maybe you should have got all these new rights the old fashioned way, amending the constitution.
And, what does one call it when the Florida Supreme Court usurps the state constitution to provide more time to manufacture votes for Gore in the 2000 election, dear Eleanor?
I must have missed THAT article, hmm?
And what is Ralph Neas and his backers after, Eleanor?
Eleanor Rodham Clift needs therapy.
Ack! ACK and double ACK!
I'm SO sick of Americans (of BOTH parties) prostituting the law to exclude God when God is who the Founders based our entire Republic on in order to SECURE our freedom!
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasoning is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind.
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
Christianity is part of the Common, or Natural Law. Therefore it is Christianity that is the basis of our government. Religion of any other type is not synonymous with the American experience of Liberty!"
God . . . is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law.
Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration, the Constitution, Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, and the father of the first organized legal training in America.
Funny. That's just what we did.
-"Stripping Senate Democrats..."-
Oh what an ugly story you weave, Eleanor.
[Movie soundbit, from wavcentral.com ]
Who can guess 1st?
Isn't it interesting how whenever liberals oppose us it's based on speculation of some made-up consequence or motivation that isn't even close to the truth? They never seem to oppose us on actual facts.
It is absolutely incredible that gay marriage has become such a hot issue. It's as if the Left is so intent on demonizing Christians, and had so little real reason to do so, that they came up with this gay marriage thing as a way to paint Christians as extremists, even though heterosexual marriage has been the cultural norm for most of the world for millenia. I detest the Left, absolutely detest it; more and more, I see it as simply demonic, and I'm not even a churchgoer.
I really can't agree that we VOLUNTARILY gave up or inalienable rights to become slaves....
but that the government created for the sole purpose of securing our rights has STOLEN them from us using 'implied contracts' and legalistic contortions that lack:
or full disclosure.
This all comes down to the libs wanting to impose their social agenda through the courts, and they know Owen and Brown won't do it. So they'll paint Owen and Brown as "extremists" who are trying to impose THEIR views on the public. In other words, the Left is once again accusing others of what they themselves want to do.
What makes them think it's religious? liberalism is just disgusting. No one - even the atheists - want anything to do with it.
The 2004 elections taught them nothing???? Man, they are thick!
They are really in a panic that lifetime appointments of originalist judges would halt the country's rapid slide in to Gomorrah, instead of the "Slouching to Gomorrah" as described in Robert Bork's excellent book (I'd suggest that Freepers get it and read it right now to see where all of the history of liberal judges has taken us and will continue to in the future.)
Another great Newsweak employee!
Marriage between a man and a woman is a NEW IDEA in the Christian faith?
Huh! News to me.
very new and strict construction of the Bible that trumps everything else, including civil law. This is dangerous business when an inflamed minority, the religious right, demands the ouster of any judge that doesnt rule their way
(Maybe I need to create a Screeching Harridan superhero graphic.)
Hardly Eleanor! The Bible states that a man who lies down with another man as he would with a woman is abhorrent. That's pretty clear.
Liberals want to usurp God.
Eleanor, When I want $hit from you, I'll squeeze yer head! Now STFU!!!!
But that was the mean old testament God.
Since Jesus came, we have a newer improved one. He lets you do anything you want!
Yes, but at least she is honest about what she wants the courts to do(perhaps because she is so stupid.) The other demon-crats are talking about judicial activism on the right, civil rights, etc. They are taking advantage that most people don't have a clue as to what is in the constitution or what the courts are doing. They just want someone else to pay the taxes, and the government takes care of everything.
How about how John McLaughlin has joined Cliff on almost every issue?
good stuff, check the Wallbuilders website for quotes from the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay.
PLEASE don't use Leviticus! There are other, better quotes. Family members of mine have all the Leviticus "abominations" memorized - shellfish, blind people worshipping, wearing two different types of cloth, etc etc etc.
Use other Biblical verses, including the New Testament ones, but PLEASE don't give them fire by using Leviticus.
meant the normalization of the breaking of the commandments!!
Bump for ref
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.