Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The History of the Supreme Court
CBN 700 Club ^ | Jily 10, 2003 | David Barton

Posted on 07/10/2003 11:57:09 AM PDT by KriegerGeist

The History of the Supreme Court
By David Barton,
The founder of WallBuilders talks about the Supreme Court, then and now.
Guest of the 700 Club.
July 10, 2003.

The History of the Supreme Court

The Founding Fathers of this nation laid out their elaborate plans for the city of Washington and made no provision for the Supreme Court to have a separate building. As intended by the Founders, the Court met inside the Capitol building for 135 years, first bouncing around from room to room and then finally residing in the vacated Senate chambers. The Founders intended that the Court should not have a major role in shaping the policy of our nation. In the first ten years of its existence, the entire Court term lasted less than two weeks a year; and for the next fifty years, the Court met only six to eight weeks a year.

Contrary to current policy, early sessions of the Supreme Court never saw the practice of public prayer as contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Records show that the Court commenced only after a minister had come into the Courtroom to pray for the Court, jurors, and their deliberations. Communion was often served before the session began, and records even show that early judges would offer a salvation message to those who were sentenced to die. Lawyers would sometimes pray for Justices as part of their arguments in Supreme Court cases. Supreme Court decisions were rendered by the Justices in defense of retaining the Bible as part of official public life.

Early Justices lived lives that exemplified their beliefs. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, also served as the President of the American Bible Society. Through his efforts, thousands of Bibles were printed and distributed across America. Other Justices served as officers and encouraged Christianity in the government and public arena. The Founding Fathers had godly requirements for those who served in public office. Noah Webster based those qualifications on Exodus 18:21, to "rule in the fear of God." Chief Justice John Jay declared, "It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christian for their rulers."

Branching Out

In 1935 the Supreme Court began to branch out, extending its powers by constructing a separate building. After moving into the new building, they extended the length of the Court’s term from only a few weeks per year to nine months per year. By rendering more and more decisions, they drew more power to themselves.

Americans quickly forgot their founding principles. The Court ignored the American government articulated by George Washington who declared that "the fundamental principle of our Constitution enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail." By 1947 the Everson v. Board of Education case, which dealt with the First Amendment and the wall of separation of church and state, began to pave the way for the intrusion of the state into religious expressions. In the early '60s, the Earl Warren Court, with little judicial experience on the part of any but one of its Justices, began to make decisions without regard to historical practices. In 1962 the Court took prayer out of public schools; in 1963 they took the Bible out of classrooms; in 1980 they ended the teaching of creation in schools. The court continues to refuse to intervene in important rulings that differ with an overwhelming majority of Americans. For example, 70 percent of Americans approve the posting of the Ten Commandments in the classrooms and courts, and 78 percent support volunteer school prayer, yet the courts refuse to reconsider these cases.

However, despite these and other current rulings, many reminders of our godly heritage are etched in wood and stone throughout the building. Inside are several carvings of the Ten Commandments, including an etching on the upper right side of the Justices’ seats that shows Moses displaying these sacred laws. When seated, the Justices face a marble relief called "The Struggle Between Good and Evil with Good Prevailing."

David says now is a critical time to persevere in prayer for our courts to return to the godly system on which they were founded.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 700club; barton; cbn; christianheritage; davidbarton; founders; history; judeochristian; pharisees; pseudohistory; scotus; supremecourt; wallbuilders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last
I wish we could get back to the good old days.
1 posted on 07/10/2003 11:57:10 AM PDT by KriegerGeist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 07/10/2003 12:00:16 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
The sculptures on the outside and inside of the SCOTUS building include many historical and allegorical figures, including Solon, Hammurabi, Confucius, and other historical law-givers, not just Moses.

No Establishment problem as long as you don't favor one religion over any other.
3 posted on 07/10/2003 12:03:10 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
i>The problem is that the govt has also violated the Establishment Clause by embracing atheism as the national religion - another Constitutional violation.

Religion // science NAZIS --- SS evolutionbots !

The Mother of ALL constitutional violations !

4 posted on 07/10/2003 12:04:59 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
Speaking of Supreme Court history, for a while during the Civil War there were 10 Justices. A southern Justice remained on the bench, so not wanting to lose any 5-4 decsions because of a possible rebel sympathizer, the Republican-majority Congress added a tenth Justice. Later, to keep Democrat President Andrew Johnson from naming any Justices, the Republican-majority Congress reduced the number of Justices on the bench from 9 to 8 and then from 8 to 7.

See http://www.republicanbasics.com for more information.
5 posted on 07/10/2003 12:05:02 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The problem is that the govt has also violated the Establishment Clause by embracing atheism as the national religion - another Constitutional violation.

Religion // science NAZIS --- SS evolutionbots !

The Mother of ALL constitutional violations --- ABOMINATIONS !

6 posted on 07/10/2003 12:07:17 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
bump
7 posted on 07/10/2003 12:07:48 PM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
David says now is a critical time to persevere in prayer for our courts to return to the godly system on which they were founded.

It wouldn't be enough. Too many other things are broken.

8 posted on 07/10/2003 12:08:03 PM PDT by Eala (Freedom for Iran 7/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
The Third Ammendment to the US Constitution not only allows for, but requires the President of the United States to imprison Supreme Court justices at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for indefinate periods at the President's discresion.

Heh, as long as the "interpretation game" is being played, why not have the President play it, too? Put the fear of God back into these black-robed bastards.

9 posted on 07/10/2003 12:16:56 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
This is a superficial article which implies some things that are not true. Only in a Democracy, not a representative republic, would the will of the majority prevail. If the will of the majority is opposed to the Court's rulings it matters not until 3/4s of the states amend the constitutional basis for those rulings. Only a Super Majority matters and even then, only after the constitution is amended to reflect that opinion.

The founders hardly meant for the Court to be some tagalong third wheel. It is a Separate BUT Equal branch of government designed to play a role on equal terms with the other two.

Nor is complaining about the Court's rulings anything new. John Marshall almost drove Jefferson over the edge with his rulings. J. tried to remove Justice Chase and might have succeded but for Aaron Burr (of all people) actually holding a trial rather than a Kangaroo Court (as J wanted.) He was impeached but not found guilty.

Then the Fugitive Slave rulings and Dred Scott decisions infuriated almost all but the Slavers because of their blatant ignoring of the Constititution.

Getting P.O.ed at the Court is an old American tradition.
10 posted on 07/10/2003 12:21:02 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
bump read later
11 posted on 07/10/2003 12:23:17 PM PDT by CGVet58 (I still miss my ex-wife... but my aim is improving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"Getting P.O.ed at the Court is an old American tradition."

Getting RID of the Court needs to become a new American tradition. If swallowing the crap squatted out by this 9-member Judicial Junta is your idea of a constitutional republic, then you need to study history a tad more.

12 posted on 07/10/2003 12:29:51 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
The Third Ammendment to the US Constitution not only allows for, but requires the President of the United States to imprison Supreme Court justices at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for indefinate periods at the President's discresion.

Are you drunk?

AMENDMENT III:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by laws.

13 posted on 07/10/2003 12:32:34 PM PDT by theDentist (Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
David Barton is a good egg.
14 posted on 07/10/2003 12:36:44 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Are you drunk? AMENDMENT III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by laws.

I know damned well what the Third Ammendment says. I also have the balls to "reinterpret" it to mean "get rid of the black-robed bastards" who dispense their bull#$%% "rulings" and "reinterpret" the rest of the Constitution. Too bad Dubya doesn't, as well.

15 posted on 07/10/2003 12:36:49 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
No Establishment problem as long as you don't favor one religion over any other.

Fine, then write a letter to SCOTUS demanding that they put a stop to the govt. endorsement of atheism.

I might add that the founders were concerned with A FEDERAL STATE religion, and the thrust of the 1st Amendment was concerned with DENOMINATIONS (Christian), not religions in general.

16 posted on 07/10/2003 12:40:33 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
All I need do is read the Constitution, which apparently you haven't, and that tells me the Court is part of the Republic.

No ruling the present court has made (and it has made some bad ones) comes any where close to the Dred Scott abomination at any rate.

Since Congress still has the power to control the Court under the "Exceptions Clause" it can overturn its rulings but has always been too cowardly to do so. The Court makes a convenient whipping Boy for the politicians.
17 posted on 07/10/2003 12:41:25 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
If the will of the majority is opposed to the Court's rulings it matters not until 3/4s of the states amend the constitutional basis for those rulings. Only a Super Majority matters and even then, only after the constitution is amended to reflect that opinion.

Well, if you want to get super-legalistic about it, then you can explain by what Constitutional authority the courts are legislating and making laws (e.g. forced busing, sodomy ok, etc.), since only CONGRESS has this authority. And you can also explain where in the Founder's writings we can find the "wall of separation" doctrine - I've studied it and strange as it is, I can't find it anywhere.

18 posted on 07/10/2003 12:43:05 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
You are right about the Exceptions Clause. I wrote my Rep. a letter demanding action under this authority. If the present Congress does not act, I will no longer vote Republican since they are ignoring their legal and moral duty under the oaths they swore. That goes for Bush too - he actually came out IN FAVOR of that horrid ruling on Michigan race preferences. Bush's lustre is wearing off very fast for me.
19 posted on 07/10/2003 12:44:47 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Hillary, up your dosage.
20 posted on 07/10/2003 12:47:48 PM PDT by theDentist (Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"No ruling the present court has made (and it has made some bad ones) comes any where close to the Dred Scott abomination at any rate."

Approving race-based university admissions assistance with a "wink, wink" from the Court is a direct violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Ammendment.

ANY deviation from the US Constitution is "bad enough" to warrant impeachment. There is no, "well, that's not really baaaaaaaad enough to get rid of them" Constitutional priciple. If the "other branch" of Government lacks the testicles to rain in these unelected black-robed bastards, the Executive Brach needs to grow some.

Let me guess.........when the US Supreme Court rules that Wahhabi Islam is the only religion allowed by the 1st Ammendment to the US Constitution, your response will be...."justshutupandtakeit". Your posting name sounds like a rapist's mantra.

21 posted on 07/10/2003 12:52:49 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
"Hillary, up your dosage."

Stop sampling the novacane.

22 posted on 07/10/2003 12:54:38 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
The executive branch has no power over the Supremes, the Congress does.
23 posted on 07/10/2003 12:57:52 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"The executive branch has no power over the Supremes, the Congress does.

The Colonists had no power over the British Empire, until they took it. If the US Supreme Court grabs power and legislates from the bench SOMEBODY had better stop them. That's the point.

Here's a clue for future nominees to the Supreme Court ---- the President should make them sign a resignation letter BEFORE he nominates them. All he has to do, if they crap on the Constitution is to accept the resignation. Too bad Eisenhower never thought of that.

24 posted on 07/10/2003 1:02:08 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
I wasn't being SUPER legalistic at all merely explaining the way things are.

Court rulings are based upon many things and, as I tried to explain, have often created a firestorm of opposition. When that opposition is correctly mobilized the constitution has been changed to nullify those rulings.

I see nothing in the constitution but the statement that Congress shall establish no religion. At the time it was written it only meant that there would be no religion established by Congress as states were able to do until the 14th amendment.
25 posted on 07/10/2003 1:04:02 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
What a difference a couple of years makes. The Supreme Court has exactly the same membership it had when Freepers were praising it to high heaven for its Bush/Gore presidential contest decisions. In fact, Sandra Day O'Connor was particularly praised here for having said at some election-night party, "This is terrible," when it was first announced that Gore had won Florida, because it meant she couldn't retire and let Gore pick her successor.
26 posted on 07/10/2003 1:20:51 PM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
"What a difference a couple of years makes."

I know. Judges start to see themselves as gods, when they've been there too long.

27 posted on 07/10/2003 1:27:36 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
You don't seem to have a clear understanding of the way the Constitution works or the history which led to it.

The Court is doing what it has always done. It is set up to make unpopular decisions without regard to democratic opinion. That is why judges are appointed to lifetime appointments.

These problems would go away to some extent with the appointment of conservatives with integrity which has been difficult or impossible to do because of the attacks the liberal media launches against them and the obstruction by the RATS. Then there are those who change once they get on the court. That drove Jefferson nuts when he would appoint Republican after Republican only to see them side with John Marshall and make decisions he loathed. But NO judge with integrity will tell you how he would rule on a potential case since that would amount to pre-judging not based upon the facts of the matter at hand.

And NO potential justice would sign a letter of resignation which would be irrelevent since nothing could happen should they decide not to retire. Cabinent ministers can be fired, Justices cannot.

If we don't like the Court that should be greater incentive to make sure fewer RATS get elected to the Senate and to redouble our efforts to defeat them in the 2004 elections.

American colonists did not have a representative government but one approved by a King. Americans today have a representative government susceptible to change when the proper procedures are followed. Colonial Americans had no means of changing their governments without the King's approval.

28 posted on 07/10/2003 2:15:52 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Not voting Republican would be idiotic and a surefire way of making things worse. Throw that baby out with the bathwater! Cut off your nose to spite your face! Shoot yourself in the foot!

But don't pretend that such a course of action would be anything but a childish, immature act not one of sober, adult reflection.
29 posted on 07/10/2003 2:19:13 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"American colonists did not have a representative government but one approved by a King. Americans today have a representative government susceptible to change when the proper procedures are followed. Colonial Americans had no means of changing their governments without the King's approval."

Looks like YOU are the one lacking in historical understanding. Read about the American Revolution for starters.

"And NO potential justice would sign a letter of resignation which would be irrelevent since nothing could happen should they decide not to retire. Cabinent ministers can be fired, Justices cannot."

Says who? "Tradition"? Give me a break. We are NOT slaves to a corupt Judiciary. The history of the Civil War shows that. On that note: Abe Lincoln IGNORED numerous "rulings" by judges during the Civil War. Nobody stopped him. That's the point. Power is as Power takes. Lincoln had testicles.

30 posted on 07/10/2003 2:32:31 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
"...no establishmnent problem as long as you ..."

Tell us about the Founder's prayers to the God(s) of Solon, Hammurabi, Confucius, and/or other Historial Law givers.

The Founder's understood "establishment" to mean the adopting of one of the Christian denominations over the rest. Many State Constitutions, as Barton has written, made Christianity a requirement for office holders.

How does wash with your interpretation of "establishment?"
31 posted on 07/10/2003 2:34:36 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
First of all, every word I said about our history is totally correct.

Second of all, no justice who would be worth having upon the Court would resign when an unpopular decision was made. Such an idea shows total incomprehension of the constitution.

What rulings of the Supreme Court did Lincoln ignore?
32 posted on 07/10/2003 2:49:12 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
>>Tell us about the Founder's prayers to the God(s) of Solon, Hammurabi, Confucius, and/or other Historial Law givers.<<

There is only One God.
33 posted on 07/10/2003 2:51:34 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"First of all, every word I said about our history is totally correct. Second of all, no justice who would be worth having upon the Court would resign when an unpopular decision was made. Such an idea shows total incomprehension of the constitution. What rulings of the Supreme Court did Lincoln ignore?"

Ah HAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!! So there is no legal basis for requiring a resignation letter from a Supreme Court nominee, only a feel-good tradition against it. F%$k tradition. I'm glad we settled that one.

The American Colonist took their freedom by force. That's history.

Lincoln ignored numerous Writs of Habeus Corpus issued by Federal judges to force the release of numerous Confederate sympathizer politicians (from Maryland, I believe). He kept them in prison for the duration of the War and used the Writs to light his pipe. The Supreme Court did not exist in the form that it does today as was stated in the article.

34 posted on 07/10/2003 3:01:41 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I wrote:

"Ah HAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!! So there is no legal basis for requiring a resignation letter from a Supreme Court nominee, only a feel-good tradition against it. F%$k tradition. I'm glad we settled that one."

This should read: ....for NOT requiring and letter of resignation........"

My mistake.

35 posted on 07/10/2003 3:08:33 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
But don't pretend that such a course of action would be anything but a childish, immature act not one of sober, adult reflection.

hahaha. Typical rude blind Bush backer. I can play that game too and tell you not to pretend you are a supporter of the U.S. Constitution when you vote for people who ignore it! Talk about a waste of a vote! I vote moral principle, not party! Both parties stink when it comes to honoring their oaths to the U.S. Constitution. Any questions?

36 posted on 07/10/2003 3:26:19 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

.
37 posted on 07/11/2003 5:16:28 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Getting RID of the Court needs to become a new American tradition.

So what you advocating is the rewriting of the constitution to eliminate the supreme court?

38 posted on 07/11/2003 5:32:11 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Yeah, it is surely not childish, immature, dumb and blind to actually HELP but those on the Court whom you KNOW will concoct rulings you KNOW you will hate. Don't work to add to the Scalias, Rienquists, Thomas' but to the Ginsbergs, Breyers, and STevens. OH, BOY WHAT A GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T WE SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE HEAD WHILE WE ARE AT IT?
39 posted on 07/11/2003 7:36:05 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Yeah, it is surely not childish, immature, dumb and blind to actually HELP but those on the Court whom you KNOW will concoct rulings you KNOW you will hate. Don't work to add to the Scalias, Rienquists, Thomas' but to the Ginsbergs, Breyers, and STevens. OH, BOY WHAT A GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T WE SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE HEAD WHILE WE ARE AT IT?

In case you didn't notice, most of the LIBERAL justices on the court were appointed by Republicans! Put that gun down!

40 posted on 07/11/2003 7:41:10 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Yes, there is a legal basis against such an idea. Justices do not serve at the pleasure of the President as do Cabinet members. That is what pre-signed letters of resignation mean. They go when he wants them gone. That ain't the way the Supreme Court works and no one who understands the Constitution would propose such a thing. This issue has nothing to do with "tradition" but is the essence of the division of power between the three branches of government and the constitutionally required independence of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court had exactly the same form during the Civil War as today except for number of justices. I asked what Supreme Court rulings Lincoln ignored but you only reference lower courts.

The American Colonists took their freedom by force? WoW, and all this time I thought they won it in the Lottery. Next thing I know you'll be telling me the Sun rises in the East.
41 posted on 07/11/2003 7:46:32 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Stevens is a senile old coot put in by an accidental president facing a RAT Senate. Souter was a stealth candidate necessitated by a president facing a RAT Senate. He was not Bush I's first choice at any rate. There is no guarantees in this except that you can be POSITIVE any RAT choice will be very bad while it is possible and even likely that a Bush pick, with a sufficiently chastined RAT party, will be very good.

Your strategy is guaranteed to fail.
42 posted on 07/11/2003 7:57:48 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
You forgot O'connor - the swing vote in the Lawrence decision. She was appointed by Reagan. It seems to me that it would not be that difficult to find out if a person is pro-life and pro-Constitution. You seem to be one of those blindly loyal republicans who would follow the party no matter what they did. Well, THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE U.S. CONSITITUTION. They take and oath and then they proceed to violate the Constitution with their anti-Consitutional legislation, refusal to protect our borders even though it is MANDATED by the Constitution. As I said, if you want to waste your vote by voting for people who ignore their oaths to the Constitution, go right ahead - it's your vote. But I vote on moral princple and moral principle alone. The republicans are not much different than the Democrats and are becoming more like them every day. Bush and the Republicans are too cowardly to fight the democrats over the judicial nominations or abortion. I'm sick of spineless Republicans. Furthermore, Bush is a globalist and I despise globalists. I am an American who believes in the sovereignty of the United States. Bush panders to illegal immigrants and leaves our borders WIDE OPEN!! Got an excuse for that? Let me tell you pal, Bush is going to lose ALOT of votes over the immigration issue. Fully 75% of Americans are for controlling the borders and it is a big big issue. Bush has also grown the federal govt in his watch - as if we need a bigger fed. govt! He also refuses to investigate the crimes committed by Clinton - a travesty of justice. Finally, Bush actually PRAISED that bogus Court decision on racial preferences! Tell me, what precisely is conservative about Bush? huh?
43 posted on 07/11/2003 8:16:55 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Your strategy is guaranteed to fail.

I follow my conscience as dictated by absolute moral principles. I don't blindly follow any man. If the country goes down the crapper, it's because the American people are immoral and corrupt. Any people who will vote for Clinton twice, and who would hand the popular vote to Al Gore, need to check their moral compass. If all Americans did the right thing and voted for the BEST CANDIDATE who would honor the Constitution as our founders intended, we wouldn't be in this mess. SO BLAME IT ON THE IMMORAL AMERICAN PEOPLE - that's where the blame belongs.

44 posted on 07/11/2003 8:23:02 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"The Supreme Court had exactly the same form during the Civil War as today except for number of justices. I asked what Supreme Court rulings Lincoln ignored but you only reference lower courts.

Name a ruling issued by the then "Supreme Court" that helped the Confederates and you'll name a ruling that Lincoln ignored/squashed/urinated on. He DID ignore lower courts and I have no doubt that he would have/did ingnore the Supreme Court, if and when they "ruled" against the Union War effort. REMEMBER!!! The Supreme Court's 'Dred Scott decision a few years earlier "settled" that whole slavery issue in the minds of the Supreme Court. I guess the country had other ideas.

"Yes, there is a legal basis against such an idea. Justices do not serve at the pleasure of the President as do Cabinet members. That is what pre-signed letters of resignation mean. They go when he wants them gone. That ain't the way the Supreme Court works and no one who understands the Constitution would propose such a thing. This issue has nothing to do with "tradition" but is the essence of the division of power between the three branches of government and the constitutionally required independence of the judiciary."

Simple --- the President REFUSES to nominate ANY Supreme Court justices. The Existing ones die off one at a time and the Court fades away. Division of power between branches is maintained and the bastards are gone.

Regarding resignation letters:"That ain't the way the Supreme Court works and no one who understands the Constitution would propose such a thing". It is, if that's what they have to do to get nominated. If a potential nominee refuses to sign........"NEXT APPLICANT, PLEASE!!!" would be the President's response. Again, he must have testicles to do it.

" The American Colonists took their freedom by force? WoW, and all this time I thought they won it in the Lottery."

Now THAT, from what you've said, I believe!!!!!!!!

45 posted on 07/11/2003 8:36:44 AM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
"So what you advocating is the rewriting of the constitution to eliminate the supreme court?"

Who said "rewrite"? I say, simply "reinterpret" it. Heh, if the Supreme Court "reinterprets" the Constitution, the President could certainly "reinterpret" the Supreme Court's "reinterpretation" to "interpret" whatever he wants. The difference being, the People have a voice in who makes it to the White House. They have no voice regarding who makes it to that judicial junta called the "Supreme Court".

46 posted on 07/11/2003 8:41:45 AM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Who said "rewrite"? I say, simply "reinterpret" it.

Could have fooled me. (See your post no. 12, where you said "Getting RID of the Court needs to become a new American tradition.")

47 posted on 07/11/2003 8:54:28 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Now exactly what does the Dred Scott decision have to do with the Slavers starting the Civil War?

It takes no testicles to do such a lunatic thing merely a complete disregard for what the constitution means. No leader would ever do such a thing.

As I said such a letter only has meaning when the writer serves at the pleasure of the President. What would happen when the president brings out the letter and says Justice Bozo has resigned and Justice Bozo says No I haven't? How ridiculous would the president look and how much ridicule would any party to such a charade endure?

Apparantly you have NO understanding of what the constitution is or means.
48 posted on 07/11/2003 9:05:58 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
I don't argue that the American people are immoral and inexcusably ignorant but that has always been the case. Most of the great decisions made by the American people have been because of a minority pushing the majority. As best as I can figure 1/3 actively fought for Independence. About 1/3 supported the concept of Victory over the slavers in the Civil War.

"Absolute" moral principles are incompatible with political success. Would your "absolute" moral principle have allowed you to ally with Stalin against Hitler or would it required you to stand aloof and go down in defeat? Or would it prevent you from allying with slave owners in fighting for American independence and, thus, remaining part of the British Empire? Overall goals require de-emphasis at times of principles not entirely consistent with tactical needs.

Besides I doubt your principles are "absolute" in any real way and are compromised in many ways. Destruction of the democRATic party is the most moral goal you can set for yourself at this time in history. Besides where would you ever find any man or party you "absolutely" agreed with on every issue?

"Absolute" moral principles are a certain way of becoming abslotutely alone and abslotutely defeated.
49 posted on 07/11/2003 9:20:18 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
O'Connor and Kennedy are generally considered Moderates not Liberals.

Republicans have always been different than Democrats and your attempt to paint them with such a broad brush indicates you don't really know much about American political history.

While I have concerns about illegal immigration and some criticism of the GOP about it there is zero chance of the RATS doing anything about. Bush has been a marvelous president and had Gore won we would be in truly deep shiite as deadly enemies could attack us without regard for consequence as under the Abomination he served with for eight years.

But it also must be remembered that these illegals are here with the connivance and assistment of millions of Americans and that until the latter half of last century there was no concern about illegal immigration. Mexicans wandered across the border at will and no one cared.

Bush HAS fought against abortion and HAS tried to do the right thing in many instances but is blocked by the RATmedia alliance and the lack of loyalty of short-sighted and impatient people who should support him but expect miracles.

Bush is the most conservative ELECTABLE president. He is not a dictator and must work with that same population you just stated was immoral. Changing them is the only way to get the results you seem to want. How can you complain about Bush not being conservative enough when he was put into the White House strictly through the skin of his teeth and only because the Supreme Court applied the constitution?
How could he swerve hard to the right knowing that would defeat him and allow the RATS to return to destroying everything honorable about America? You think he is an idiot? Get real, the views of Freepers are the fringe of the fringe in America and our views will never be the views of any but a small minority of Americans, the rest just WON'T think about these issues. They don't care or are actively anti-American.

Federal government growth is almost always as a result of threats to the nation, as it has been under Bush. Other than the FSA there has been no growth in number of federal employees. In fact, federal employee unions hate Bush and are very upset with his plans to privitize as much federal work as is possible.

Look at Bush's enemies and tell me you will join them in opposing him. They know very well he is deadly to the RATliberal program and are willing to use every deception, misinformation and lie to defeat him. You apparently have no problem in joining that despicable crew.
50 posted on 07/11/2003 9:42:12 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson