We need to keep our focus on marriage, and rebuke the SCOTUS with an Amendment to the Constitution.
Posted on 07/03/2003 12:09:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
There's a rising chorus of anger across the land in response to three U.S. Supreme Court decisions within a week that strip the people of their power, eviscerate the rule of law and illegitimately empower nine unaccountable high priests in black robes.
In the first case, in a 5-4 ruling, the justices found the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause really doesn't mean what it says. They found there is a compelling state interest to discriminate on the basis of race to promote a more diverse society.
The court ruled that so-called "affirmative action" programs in colleges and universities that show racial preferences for the purpose of achieving the nebulous goal of "diversity" are perfectly appropriate.
Back in the 1960s, the civil-rights movement opposed racism. But, most of all, it opposed "institutionalized racism" – the pernicious kind sponsored by states and corporations and cultural institutions. This was seen, rightly so, as the most insidious form of racism.
Today, through decisions like this by the Supreme Court, the U.S. is re-institutionalizing racism that has been largely destroyed through the good efforts of those striving to achieve a color-blind society.
The next blockbuster ruling was the 6-3 vote determining, for all intents and purposes, that the Constitution contains a hidden right to practice homosexual sex.
Of course, if there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?
You can't. There is no difference. And that's why there is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn't appear in the Constitution. It is a subject not addressed – which is, under the Constitution, precisely why it is a matter left to the various states.
This opinion bears striking resemblance to an earlier court decision still hotly debated 30 years later – Roe v. Wade. There, too, the justices acted as super-legislators rather than slaves of the Constitution.
As Justice Antonin Scalia explained it, the court "has taken sides in the culture war." He added, "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
Homosexual marriage? Homosexual adoption? How can the court say no? It's just a matter of time before all state laws prohibiting them are struck down using the same logic – or illogic – used by the current court.
The third ruling that demonstrates the hyper-activism of the Supreme Court majority was a much-less-noticed 5-4 decision to overturn a California law and free hundreds of confessed and convicted child molesters in California.
The court found the state had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post facto – after the fact – laws when the Legislature changed the time limit for bringing criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases to cover older cases.
As a result, hundreds of molesters have been or will be released from jails and prisons across the state. The cases all involve not just allegations of abuse, but strong corroborating evidence, which was required under the 1994 law struck down by the high court.
Americans had better rise up angry against this court or we as a nation will cease to have anything even remotely resembling a representative form of government. It's not enough to wait years for new justices to be appointed. At least five, perhaps six, members of the court have proved they are out of control, unaccountable to the Constitution from which they derive their limited authority. They are in clear violation of the oaths they took to their offices.
It's time to impeach them. It's time to put some heat on those abusing their power – and let's name names: Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Anthony Kennedy sometimes goes along for the ride.
These people have to go.
It's time to challenge the authority of the majority with an impeachment movement.
Will it happen overnight? Absolutely not. No great movements ever do. But it will only happen if Americans stand up and demand it. Even if the movement fails to achieve its objectives, it will set a different tone for the appointment of future justices who will know there is a political price to pay for undermining the Constitution.
Thm. Jefferson, while president, tried this very thing with Justic Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Marshall clearly in the cross hairs. Thank God Jefferson failed...to his towering fury, I might add.
Jefferson and the rest of the Republican/Jeffersonians felt that the SC had no business deciding on and/or over turning laws passed by the (Republican/Jeffersonian) congress who claimed they spoke for "the People".
The role of the SC was to be, in their view, essentially to serve at the pleasure, and for the purpose, of the party in power- namely the Republican/Jeffersonians who felt that with the manipulation(s) of the SC they would maintain a lock on power; as they probably would have for several elections, if not longer.
Mercifully, when it came to a vote the sense decency, statesmanship, and of duty called forth "the better Angel of our nature" in enough members of Congress, including a surprisingly large number of Republican/Jeffersonians, to defeat the measure of impeachment against Samuel Chase...and any other Justice, at any other time.
So why was no amendment passed? Oh, several reasons, I expect. The shame a lot of the members of Congress felt about getting tangle up in this mess ("Damn your conscience! Vote with your party!"); the sullen fury of Jeffereson who most certainly would have pushed for an amendment if he thought he had even a ghost of a chance; the mounting troubles with Britian; the trouble brewing out West, etc.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
This crisis has arisen not because the Justices of the Supreme Court are or are not impeached.
It has arisen because of the repeated failure of Congress to make proper exceptions to, and regulation of, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as they are charged to do by Art. III, s. 2.
A Congress so weak as to fail in its written duty to make exceptions to and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Court will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS consider the much more radical, and much less well-documented, step of impeachment and removal of one or several justices.
“Judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic...” –Thomas Jefferson
I don't think Jefferson's failure was such a great thing. That, along with the Marbury v. Madison verdict, cemented the courts' ascent to power equal to (perhaps even surpassing) that of the other two branches of government.
The courts, particularly the SCOTUS, are clearly the most autocratic branch of gov't. These unelected potentates serve for life, and if there's no way to get rid of them for malfeasance, then they might just as well be monarchs.
Jefferson rightly feared the power of such judges, as he presciently noted they could extend their power indefinitely. The Framers intended the judiciary to be the third branch of government—not the almighty, unstoppable and unaccountable branch. Which sadly, is pretty much what they've become.
We need to keep our focus on marriage, and rebuke the SCOTUS with an Amendment to the Constitution.
It has arisen because of the repeated failure of Congress to make proper exceptions to, and regulation of, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as they are charged to do by Art. III, s. 2.
A Congress so weak as to fail in its written duty to make exceptions to and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Court will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS consider the much more radical, and much less well-documented, step of impeachment and removal of one or several justices.
======================
Amen! While morally reprehensible, short sighted, callous, and opportunistic, a SCOTUS Justice voting for "gay rights" is not an impeachable offense.
==========================================
Mr. Jefferson's near paranoid antipathy toward both the SCOTUS and the Federalist party in general is a well know albeit little mentioned facet of his being.
The above quote, read w/o this knowledge of Jefferson's character does indeed sound noble. However, considering Jefferson the man and politican, as opposed to Jefferson the historial liberal icon, his words take on altogether different shading.
I'm aware of Mr. Jefferson's loathing for life-tenured judges, and of his deep suspicion of those who wanted to concentrate power in the hands of the central government. And in general, I pretty much agree with him.
The accretion of power to the FedGov over the years has yielded an ever-expanding leviathan of rules, taxes, regulations and other impediments to our freedom—on everything from guns and alcohol to highway speed limits and toilet water mandates.
And the fact judges are appointed (not elected) and confirmed to life terms—immune to accountability by voters—strikes me as the most monarchical, un-American custom to have ever survived our Revolution. That anyone should hold power in perpetuity w/o any limitation (short of assassination) just seems contrary to the idea of a Republic.
With the current court legislating like crazy from the bench, imposing their own morals on us, inventing new laws and "rights" etc., I think it's about time George W. Bush pulled rank on these tyrants and paraphrased another of my favorite president, good ol' Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall Anthony Kennedy has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
Judicial activism has no place if they are to serve what is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic .. If we can keep it .
If we are to cut out the cancer of special interest activism we ought to be scortching Congress 1st .
Also the following excellent quote from Mr. Jefferson:
[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.
He [Jefferson] further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:
The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
Then look at current posts that seem to prevail with commentary & popularity . I'm sincerely stunned to paralisys .
Thank goodness. And this was precisely Andrew Jackson's point when he said of the then-chief justice, "Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." When the court does something totally contrary to the will of the people, I'd say it's the president's duty (as the people's tribune and representative) not to enforce their idiocy.
The court is the weakest of the three branches.
That's how it was intended to be, anyway. But in recent decades, it seems all too often the courts have been seen by the Left as a way of getting their agenda codified as law—which they'd never be able to do thru a legislature. Banning shcool prayer, forced deseg through school busing, the "right" to murder pre-natal infants, etc. all came through the courts, bcuz those leftist creeps knew they could never impose such outrages via the people's elected representatives. And since the court can be misused in this way, the Left has (from my perpspective) been engaged in a decades-long effort to build the power of the courts through popular awe and mystique—portraying them as some kind of sagely seat of all wisdom...like the Jedi Council or some such thing.
The last time the court overturned an appreciable number of laws was in the 1960s.
Bingo! You got it. See the ¶ above. And imvho the 1960s were the most vile decade in our history—not just bcuz of all the social depravity, but also in part bcuz of all the stupid-*ss court decisions.
Antisodomy laws were not even meant to be enforced; they were meant as a symbolic way for some people in those states to express their distaste for a small minority there.
Fine. So they are. But as a libertarian, don't you agree that the people of various states have the right to make any laws they want, that reflect local values and mores? Or do you like seeing a FEDERAL tribunal reach in and impose its will on local folks? Just the haughty imposition of Federal power (and disregard for local opinion) is enough for me to find this decision appalling, let alone the fact that I happen to agree with the spirit of Texas' law in this case.
While they appear so erudite and sagacious, some of the dumb*ss decisions the justrices all-too-often render serve as a reminder that these people are in fact very human, and just as mortal as the rest of us.
In fact, making such pretentions to wisdom only makes them look to me like high-handed autocrats, completely out of touch with everyday, red-blooded Americans. Lest we forget, humility is the beginning of true wisdom.
I don't believe people may pass a law in violation of individual rights, even if the violation of rights is based on local mores.
While I respect your opinion as a libertarian (I have strong small-"l" libertarian leanings myself) I must point out that ultimately, solid morality is the best guarantee of personal freedom and individual liberties. If people don't live upright, moral lives and conduct themselves according to our established standards of right and wrong, then their personal liberties (and others') are inevitably imperilled. I'm talking about transcendant, eternal truths here. Are you willing to ignore 4,000 years of Judæo-Christian heritage just to insist same-sex individuals have a legal "right" to rump-ram and rug-munch?
This privacy amendment would require the decriminalization of fornication, etc.
Is fornication really a victimless act, as 1960s "aquarian" dogmatics are always telling us? What about the aggrieved party in a marriage, who was cheated by some fornicating slimebag? Or what about the heartbreak, STD risks, unwanted pregnancies and other consequences that often attend leisurely, pre-marital "spring break" sex?
And pleeeeze don't tell me that queer sex doesn't bring harm to society. Its fallout is both intanglible (the general decay of society's moral fabric, the further cheapening of human sexuality) and tangible (the violation of natural/anatomical human functioning and its attendant medical problems; HIV/AIDS and all the billions of tax dollars dumped into researching it). Like it or not, sexual deviants are definitely a burden on society—a burden I'm really sick of my taxes paying for.
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.