Judicial Coup d'Etat (Bill O'Reilly)

foxnews.com ^ | Friday , September 19, 2003 | Bill O'Reilly

[Judicial Coup dEtat]

This is very important and somewhat repetitive and I'm sorry about that, but again it's very important.

There is a move in the United States to change the country. The ACLU (search) is hooking up with a number of liberal judges to declare things that they don't like as unconstitutional.

[Judicial Coup dEtat]

First woman approved as head of Massachusetts
high court

BOSTON (AP) — Justice Margaret Marshall was elevated to chief
justice of Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday, becoming the first
woman to head the nation's oldest appellate court.

Ms. Marshall, a former chief counsel at Harvard University, overcame
charges of anti-Catholic bias to win a 6-3 confirmation vote by the
Governor's Council, which votes on nominations by the governor.

"1 follow in the footsteps of giants," Ms. Marshall said. "1 do so with
humility, and with a deep commitment to the rule of law."

Ms. Marshall, 55, a native of South Africa, was appointed an associate
justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1996. She was at Harvard at the
time and had previously been in private practice.

Her nomination to head the 307-year-old court was marred when
Cardinal Bernard Law raised concerns that she harbored anti-Catholic
bias.

Law, who heads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, wrote last
month to Gov. Paul Cellucci and said Ms. Marshall was "open to serious
charges of anti-Catholicism."

He cited an incident in which Ms. Marshall, while at Harvard, chastised a
professor who had used university stationery for a personal note with an
anti-abortion message.

Catholic groups also feared she could not be impartial on abortion cases
because she once served on an abortion clinic's board of trustees. Ms.
Marshall denied her personal views would affect her role as jurist.

Law later retracted his complaint after speaking with Ms. Marshall, who
is Protestant.

"She gave me her assurance that she was not anti-Catholic," he said, "and
I have absolutely no reason to not accept her word on that."

10/13/99 8:44 PM

[Lexington Green]

A tyranny of lawyers.

[pgyanke]

Next to the war on terror, this is the most important story the U.S. has seen in decades.

I agree with him in general but we part ways here. No foreign power or lunatics with bomb belts can truly destroy America--aside from nuclear holocaust. America is an idea of self-rule, of government by the people as opposed to the model of the rest of the world.

The war on terror is important, yes, but our destruction is possible only from within. The war on terror is to keep us safe. The war on liberalism is a war for America itself.

[randog]

...I provide rock-solid proof that the Founding Fathers wanted spirituality incorporated into public policy...

From the Declaration of Indepencence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

The founders recognized that man is fallible and governments will grant/remove rights as needed (mostly remove them), hence the need to invoke a power greater than man to ensure basic rights. Liberals just don't get that.

[Noachian]

The movement to lead this nation into a European style Socialist state has been afoot now for quite some time. That O'Reilly is speaking out on this topic, on national TV, may or may not change the thinking of the American Judiciary, but it WILL serve to bring this matter to the attention of the American people.

[zeromus]

Uhmm but what about the tyranny of the majority? So what if 70 some odd percent approve of it, if it is tyranny?

[Judicial Coup dEtat]

Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
Wake-up Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts

[Teacher317]

If 77% of the population wanted slavery reinstated, that would not make it any less unConstitutional. The Constitution does NOT reflect the will of the people! It reflects the wisdom gained through hundreds of years of suffering under governing systems, which by their nature, only seek ever more control over the lives of its citizens or subjects.

But I do agree that judges are far too frequently forsaking their Constitutional duty in favor of political considerations, to the detriment of us all.

[Centurion2000]

So what if 70 some odd percent approve of it, if it is tyranny?

At 70+% it becomes a national cultural trait.

[pgyanke]

The point is that we are a nation of laws. The laws are subject to amendment and there is a process for that. Since those who must do the amending and approve of the amending are subject to the will of the people... WE are in charge. It isn't a tyranny of the majority unless a super-majority agrees that they prefer tyranny.

The judiciary has no role or right to change laws or influence social justice--only to apply general guidelines (laws) to specific circumstances.

[SierraWasp]

Sheeesh!!!

Hey! I'm still pist over former Governor of CA Earl Warren's Supreme Court decision 45 years ago that "Cows Don't Vote!"

It totally destroyed the balance between "One Person, One Vote" and "One County, One Vote" in every bicameral state legislature!!!

As a result, we now have "Rural Cleansing" and "Rural Taxation Without Proper Representation!"

For instance... LA County Citizens have access to 13 State Senators, while my County Citizens share 1 State Senator with 13 other counties!!!

If they had done the same thing to the US Senate, WA, OR, CA, AZ, NV, UT, MT, NM and WY would all have only 1 lousy US Senator to represent all 9 states!!! State like CA, NY and TX would be hogging ALL the power in the US Senate and TX sure wouldn't be a match for CA and NY!!!

President Eisenhour admitted the worst mistake he ever made was appointing Earl Warren to the US Supreme Court and he certainly should have been impeached. His was the first HUGE "Judicail Coup dEtat" and the most destructive of the last century!!!

Think about it and tell me you think we shouldn't revist the infamous "Cows Don't Vote" Bull Chit!!!

[pgyanke]

The Constitution does NOT reflect the will of the people!

The Constitution isn't the law of God. It includes the means for Constitutional amendment. It DOES reflect the will of the people, but the people have to unite on issues long enough to affect changes in our fundamental laws. All other means of amendment are tyranny.

[Eva]

Here's something you might be interested in.

[SierraWasp]

Welcome to your first day at FR!!!

Or, are you an old timer that picked up a new handle just to launch this thread?

[zeromus]

National cultural traits and tyranny are not mutually exclusive.

[TheAngryClam]

Not true, she's been in the U.S. since 1968.

Saying things like that only hurt the point.

[Carry_Okie]

Actually, I think the words, "compelling state interest" on the part of Justice O'Connor takes the cake, with Justice Breyers' reference to "international standards" taking a close second.

[Wolfstar]

There is a move in the United States to change the country. The ACLU (search) is hooking up with a number of liberal judges to declare things that they don't like as unconstitutional.

Bill O'Reilly has just figured this out?! The Left has only been doing this since at least, oh, 1913 with the ratification of the income tax and direct-election-of-senators amendments to the Constitution. But I guess it's better late than never to the party, Bill.