Posted on 05/09/2008 6:30:13 AM PDT by rellimpank
Supreme Court justices take an oath promising to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties . . . of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
They do not take an oath to "faithfully and impartially perform all duties . . . except when personally offended, or when having pangs of empathy for the poor or trying to be a standup guy or gal."
Listening to Barack Obama, you may think they do. And though the Bush administration cared little for the Constitution, the next administration, it seems, won't care in a brand new way.
You may remember conservatives fuming when Sen. John McCain joined the "Gang of 14" — a group of self-proclaimed moderates who in truth were too cowardly to vote on qualified judicial nominees.
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
I hear this oft repeated but never supported with fact. Is there a decision that has not undergone scrutiny via a Court or Congressional committee?
“the Denver Post’s token conservative lays it on”
Very well.
However, the comments posted thereafter show how absolutely ignorant most Americans have become on the subject. They want our Judges to be Santa Claus, and give them whatever they ask for.
Our country is almost gone and probably will be by 2030.
He signed McCain/Feingold into law.
They also decided that paper money was constitutional, and that the Commerce Clause covers everything everywhere, and that tomatoes are vegetables, not fruit. You'll find lots of examples of the Supremes exercising either their personal agendas, or those of the Powers That Be.
Esp with O’Connor and her ‘we should rely more on international law when deciding our cases’ crack.
--and that was about one hundred years ago, IIRC-
“...and though the bush administration cared little for the constitution....”
the usual innuendo, calumny and pravda-like proclamations inspired by democrat party central.
Further back than that. 1947 was the year the SCOTUS started pulling things out of the air and calling it “constitutional.” That was when they cut and pasted the phrase “separation of church and state” from a personal letter of Jefferson (who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of the Constitution) into that document's First Amendment. They've been cutting and pasting ever since!
Scientists are certain of HOW life began but unclear on the concept of WHEN life begins.
The paper money issue was shortly after the War Between the States, I think. Someone had loaned money in the form of gold and silver coin, and was being repaid in paper, which he thought had no value merely because the constitution said precious metal coinage was all that was allowed. He went to court and lost when the Supremes ruled that paper money was now the coin of the repuublic. (or something close to that).
I thought it was McCain who had said Justice Alito was way too conservative? He's now OK? If Romney had said that FR would have a half-hundred posts decrying the fake conservative flip-flopper.
And those electrons fall under the telephone/telegraph legislation.
Probably the most spineless act of his presidency -
“I’ll let the courts decide”
They avoid the question of how life began.
And, leftwingers avoid the question of when life begins.
There’s only one before/after bright line in the lifecycle of the human organism.
Rule of law is just so, ... so, phallocratic, Eurocentric and (yuk!) square.
There are some interesting ironies to our court system.
To start with, most people don’t know that particular supreme court justices have individual jurisdictions. This means in a lot of cases that if you want to appeal something to the SCOTUS, the appeal has to go through a particular justice. If that justice doesn’t want it heard, he turns it down.
But it works both ways, because the SCOTUS might make a decision, but a lower court judge may decide against their decision, by claiming that their case is just a little bit different, just enough, so that the SCOTUS decision doesn’t apply.
This is why our appeals courts are jammed with very similar cases, often involving stupid things, like students protesting school dress codes, student newspaper censorship, and other endless arguments that have been made time and time again for decades. It never ends.
For example, the SCOTUS last term decided the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case from Alaska, of whether a student can be punished for doing something offensive off school grounds during a school sponsored event.
But it doesn’t matter what they decided, because there will undoubtedly be many more lawsuits over very similar issues for years to come.
Lawsuits that should not be permitted, that degrade our legal system.
Some time ago, the ACLU learned that it could build enough legal precedent momentum at the low level, with friendly judges, so that this momentum would force higher courts to change their decisions.
But then they were given a gift by a Democrat congress, that they could collect monetary awards by bringing endless harassment suits against school districts across the US. So it became profitable for them to create frivolous lawsuits.
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.