God, Guns and Gays. The California Supremes and state lawyers target Boy Scouts again.

Remove God from the Pledge, Abolish the Second Amendment and now, ban judges from Scouting?

Commenting on Sacramento's Golden Empire Council of the Boy Scouts of America not applying for United Way funding, council executive Doug McDonald says, "I don't think Scouting has seen its demise or will anytime soon," but he added that acquiring funds is more difficult. One California based organization is not so confident and urges patriotic Americans to draw a line in the sand and support the Boy Scouts financially in it's fight for survival. "The legal profession in California has just fired a warning shot across our bow," reads the headline at Patriotwatch.com.

While the scouts organization has stood fast in its right to oppose admitting gays and atheists, it now faces new assaults from those that would be called upon to protect their constitutional rights, the judges of California and the federal bench. "In the Patriot Defenders Network's opinion, this is out-right war, tantamount to domestic terrorism" says its director Dave Jenest. Recently, Scout Council's McDonald was quoted in a Sacramento Bee article as saying, "I remember the Vietnam era, when we were criticized for wearing uniforms and being militaristic." Jenest asks, "Will they apply a 'Nazi Youth Movement' label next? Will there be a court left in this land to protect the scouts or any other patriotic organization if the 'Supremes' have their way?"

The latest controversy stems from yet another Sacramento Bee article today entitled High court will weigh scouting ban for judges. The item leads with, "Spurred by two of California's largest lawyer organizations, the state Supreme Court said Thursday that it will study proposals to bar judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the organization discriminates against homosexuals." "So much for being 'pro-choice' when it comes to one's right to 'free association' protections afforded by our U.S. Constitution.

No wonder Shakespeare suggested we all shoot the lawyers. It's time to reclaim our heritage and defend our rights against such assaults. Begging the larger question, "when is it time to impeach the 9th Circuit Court" perhaps we can strike back with our wallets instead of our mouths. This Christmas season or "Holiday" season for those on The Court who would object to Christ's birth being celebrated, perhaps a donation to the Boy Scouts of America is in order. Perhaps Free Republic Network Chapters could ban together and urge 60,000 FReepers craft a strategy that will unite conservatives in support the scouts and taking on each bar association that has pledged to support this lunacy in our courts.

With all the resources and resolve of Freepers, can we find a way to launch a preemptive strike and tell the media, the courts, our legislatures and our President that we've had enough?. Please give it your FReeper best!

Comwatch,

AHHH, I see the bunker lights have been burning deep in the night yet again.

The young people of this country should be protected. I was a scout in canada and my parents never hesitated to enroll me. My troop was at my church and my Sunday school teachers were also my Scout Leaders. It fostered a real family atmosphere. We (dare I say it) said the "Lord's Prayer" and our "oath of allegience" along with the national anthem at the beginnig of each scout night. We learned survival skills and made new friends.

Some organizations should not change. When I wasn't picked for the school hockey team I didn't get a NAACP lawyer to force my high school to let me play. I just practiced harder. When I was refused the opportunity to be in my ROTC drill team, I practiced harder. This is becoming a larger issue than just the boy scouts. Look at the organization that is trying to force the owners of a golf course that has been around longer than these individuals have been alive to allow women to be members.

If I put on a little dress, and sold cookies, can I be a girl scout. I warn you though, If you say no, The NAACP will be calling and I will have you slapped in cuffs for infringing on my equal rights.

Is that 28 of 29 cases that were decided by the Ninth, or 28 of 29 that were appealed? It would seem surprising to me if 96% of the cases for a court were appealed, much less overturned. On the other hand, for the majority of appealed cases to be overturned could say nothing more than that lawyers don't appeal cases they don't expect to win.

The opinion was issued by a three-judge panel, which means plaintiffs can ask for an 11-judge panel of the same court to review the decision before it would be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Court: Citizens have no right to own guns: Federal Panel in S.F. Addresses 2nd Amendment in Upholding State Ban on Assault Weapons

Balancing the NinthSeven of eight cases already decided by the high Court this year from the Ninth Circuit have been reversed, and six of those seven were by unanimous or nearly unanimous rulings. A few years ago, the Supreme Court even took the extraordinary step of issuing a special order barring the Ninth Circuit from issuing any further last-minute rulings in a death penalty case. The year I was fortunate enough to serve as a law clerk at the Supreme Court, 28 of 29 cases from the Ninth Circuit resulted in reversals. It is almost as if one could write a word processing macro — call it the [Alt-9] macro — which would automatically insert at the end of any opinion involving a case from the Ninth Circuit the following conclusion: "The opinion of the Ninth Circuit is reversed; the decision of the Court is unanimous."

Types of Cases the Court Hears Most common-roughly two-thirds of the total-are requests for review of decisions of federal appellate or district courts. The great majority of cases reach the Supreme Court through its granting of petitions for writs of certiorari, from the Latin certiorari volumnus, "we wish to be informed."

Normally the Writ of Certiorari * says in effect to an appellate court, "Send us the record in this case you decided recently." In very rare instances a writ of certiorari before appellate judgment says, " Send us the record in this case you haven't reviewed yet." It enables the Court to act with maximum speed in unusual cases of great public importance

With some 7,000 petitions annually, deciding which case to decide is a load in itself. According to a court historian, "it is arguably the most important stage in the entire Supreme Court process." In the1999-2000 Term the Court heard argument on 83 cases and decided 74 cases. Four more cases were subsequently remanded or dismissed, bringing total cases accepted and disposed of to . In addition, 50 cases were decided summarily, that is, without argument.

Each Justice determines how he or she will vote to accept or reject each certiorari petition, usually calling for a law clerk's memorandum analyzing the petition. Eight of the Justices make use of a "cert pool" system. As the certiorari petitions are received, their clerks take turns writing memorandums, and each Justice conducts whatever additional research is necessary. Justice Stevens prefers to rely on his own clerks, and all the Justices review all petitions.

Roughly 70 percent of the petitions end at this point, with a vote not to accept the case. The Justices may be satisfied that the decision of the lower court was correct, or that the case has no national significance, or, in some instances, that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction. Whatever the reason for denial, the effect is to allow the decision of the lower court to stand.

Of the cases remaining, the Justices screen the problems closely-by a process they explain freely in outline.

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

Remedy...

I am reluctant to ping these days, but just this once... perhaps you and the others who have shown an interest in this small thread would pass the word below, check out this upcoming conference and tell me if it's something we should put our best efforts towards. It was passed on to me by a VERY conservative lady who I sometimes disagree with. Also, for those who are talk radio fans and willing to become more active on this very issue, send me an email:

E-mail Patriotwatch

Dave: Pass it on! FYI Santa Rosa is located 70 miles N. of San Franciso. This is Lynn Woolsey,Barbara Boxer , Mike Thompson, grey Davis zone! 15 miles from the Bohemian Grove as well. A real hot spot for the NWOites! That's the bad news, and here's the good news. One of the nations most active Eagle Forum is in Santa Rosa/Sonoma County as well as J.A.I.L.; the Sons of Liberty; Right to Keep and Bear; John Birch; and others. The patriots there are putting up a good fight in light of the opposition!

To California JAILers

(Please Pass Along To Others)

To: California J.A.I.L.4Judges
From:   Suzanne LeBoeuf, Associate JAILer-In-Chief, California, (707) 425-4124 and email: icsn2202@yahoo.com
Re: CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY CONFERENCE
When: April 19, 2003  at 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Where: Santa Rosa Vet's Memorial Building, 1351 Maple Avenue, Santa Rosa, California
Seating capacity: 1,000
This conference will feature speakers Ron Branson and Barbie. This will be an opportunity to raise money and awareness about the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law so that we can start raising the income needed to pass this initiative.
The public is invited to speak out about their problems with the courts. There will be a microphone for audience speakers who will have a specified time to speak, such as for 10 minutes, since many hundreds are expected to want to be heard.
I am asking that JAILers help this event be a success, by attending, planning, and advertising this conference. We have a prime opportunity also to sell J.A.I.L. t-shirts and J.A.I.L. tapes, etc. since there will be tables provided for J.A.I.L. and other agreed-upon groups to display and sell items. A banner would be great as this is a huge auditorium.
Admission: $15 in advance by April 5, 2003, $25 at the door. Scholarships available by contacting me. No one turned away! Costs are to cover the building at $75/hour for 10 hours and $1 million liability insurance. $215 has been paid to secure the building by "gold-lined pockets" (I wish), yours truly. Others have offered donations to help advertise this event already!
Other speakers are being lined up, and suggestions for speakers are also requested.
Catering will be available so that people can eat since we will not stop for a formal lunch break.  The caterer will be paid directly by the public; this is not included in the ticket price. Mark McCoy has a caterer in mind he knows personally. We have huge coffee-makers provided by the Vet's Memorial building.
The media will be invited as well as one or two friends who will videotape this event. Taping for cassette tape would be great if anyone has a quality tape-recorder and would like to be in charge of this. Donation containers will need to be manned. I could use help with ticket-collectors at the door. Other ideas are welcome.
Conference website: http://www.icsn.info
Please contact me, and thank you for any help you can provide. We know how much we need to pass the J.A.I.L. initiative! I hope to hear from you soon!

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law

LONG OVERDUE:

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. - Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.

What else might we do?

That's a good question. Just seems like one day I woke up in bizarro world, where up is down and down is up. It just can't get any stranger than this - A concerted effort by elected officials and/or the government to cripple institutions, our values, mores and philosophies - the fabric of our society and replace with perverted polar opposites of what we know to be Good.

What's sad is hearing the "debate" about whether we are allowed to say "Merry Christmas" in the US without offending anyone, as if this is some leading-edge part of the culture war. Forget it folks. Long ago they managed to gut substantive religious values from all walks of public life, and to add insult to injury, using the very Amendment designed to protect religion. The Boy Scouts are just one of those remnants that are next in line to be Purged. They don't want to pay any attention to a given law until they can get it changed in their favor - and then it becomes Gospel, of course.

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.