Skip to comments.“Judges Who Break the Law - Judges Who Steal”
Posted on 10/06/2003 9:13:22 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Citizens across the country are being mugged and robbed by the activist judges, who sit on their state supreme courts. The extent of the theft being perpetrated is staggering; often undermining even the most fundamental right of American citizens to be self-governing.
Let me say right up front, that it is generally unwise to speak evil of dignitaries. By virtue of the offices they hold, judges ought to be afforded honor and respect. Bear in mind, however, that ours is a nation wherein we are ruled, not by men, but by laws. The judges discussed in this column are lawbreakers. They are men and women who have knowingly abused their official positions to corrupt the law and further their own personal political agendas. That being said, here goes.
With alarming regularity and for purely political reasons, liberal activist judges in state courts around the country are invalidating important, often historic, voter-approved ballot measures. These judges are using their official authority to nullify voter-approved laws, simply because they, the judges themselves, personally dont agree with the laws the voters have approved.
The point of this column is to show you that in many cases, these judges are acting in clear violation of the law, doing things that under their own states laws they are expressly prohibited from doing.
As we look at just a couple of states and only a few of the many examples that could be offered, the extent of the loss the people are suffering at the hands of activist, lawbreaking judges will become obvious.
In 2000, a solid majority of voters in Oregon approved Measure Seven, a historic, landmark property rights measure that required governments to pay "just compensation" to property owners, when the value of their property was reduced by a government imposed land use regulation. Considering the wholesale deterioration of property rights that has occurred under Oregons egregious land use laws, this constitutional amendment marked a turning point in Oregon history.
However, after all the petition signatures had been collected and counted; after the proponents and opponents had spent millions of dollars educating the voters about the measure; and after a million plus votes had been cast and counted, the Oregon Supreme Court, with no basis in law, simply threw the measure out.
Why? They invalidated the measure simply because the seven justices of the Oregon Supreme Court personally didnt like the measure. I have yet to talk to a single person in the legal profession, regardless of his or her view of the measure itself, who doesnt view the courts decision to nullify Measure Seven to be a legally groundless, purely political decision.
They cant do that, you say. There must be some legal basis for their decision. They cant just make this stuff up, can they? Well, judge for yourself. In a moment, when you read the Oregon Supreme Courts basis for its decision, you will see that the court is clearly violating the law, knows it, and simply doesnt care.
Bear in mind, the now infamous Measure Seven decision was not the first time an important, voter-approved measure was hijacked in broad daylight by the gang of black-robed bandits, who sit on the Oregon Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of other states.
In 2002, nearly 10 years after it passed, the Oregon Supreme Court also invalidated a term limits measure that had been approved by an overwhelming 70 percent of Oregon voters. That measure, for better or for worse, was causing a voter mandated, complete turnover in the members comprising the Oregon State Legislature, and in the view of Term Limits supporters, removing the well-entrenched, professional politicians and replacing them with more of a citizen legislature.
As with the property rights measure, after the signatures were collected, the campaigns waged, and the votes cast and counted, the will of nearly a million voters was quietly replaced by the will of seven elitist judges. Amazingly, this judicial heist occurred nearly ten years after the measure had passed. A decade after it passed, the court said it never should have been on the ballot and was therefore invalid!
In Oregon, this scam started back in 1996, when to balance the legal scales that had tilted much too far in favor of the criminals, Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved Measure 40, a victims rights measure. After the election, the soft-on-crime ACLU types challenged the measure as illegally containing more than one subject.
Proponents thought they had little to worry about. Oregons single-subject rule was clearly defined in decades of case law, and the victims rights law appeared to be well within its confines.
Little did they know that behind the scenes the Oregon Supreme Court had decided that there was too much self-governing going on in Oregon and that it was time for somebody to rein in the "runaway" initiative process. The justices knew that such a task required at least some basis in law; something to hang their hat on. Finding none, they did what activist judges do. They made one up.
The justices of the Oregon Supreme Court took a provision of the state constitution that doesnt apply to initiatives, a provision that expressly says it doesnt apply to initiatives, and applied it to initiatives anyway. The judges then began using this judicially created law to throw out every important voter-approved measure that the judges themselves personally didnt like.
Understand that the judges were not making an honest mistake, or simply interpreting words differently than other judges had in the past. No, they were and are violating the law, and they know it. They know what the law says. They know what it means. They just dont care.
As stated earlier, this epidemic of judicial arrogance and usurpation of power is not confined to Oregon or even to the state courts. Judges across the nation have discovered that there are almost no limits to their power, provided that they are willing to ignore the clear meaning of the law and the legislative history of the laws and provided that the legislative bodies and the newspaper editors will not challenge them.
After all, judges are the ones who interpret the law. When challengers try to use the law to confront them, the courts simply say that the laws cited dont mean what challengers say they mean.
In other words, the laws means what the judges say they mean, not what the legislators, who wrote and passed the laws, meant them to say.
Because I am making some grave accusations in this column, calling supreme court justices thieves and lawbreakers, lets establish clearly that justices in Oregon are indeed violating the law when they throw out voter-approved measures based on the so called "single amendment rule." Lets look at the actual law the Oregon Supreme Court has used to throw out about half-a-dozen voter approved measures over the past five or six years and see what it actually says.
Way back in 1906, by initiative petition the People of the State of Oregon adopted a Constitutional Amendment establishing the procedure by which the state legislature may propose amendments to the Oregon Constitution, and then submit those amendments to the voters of the state for their approval or rejection.
That 1906 amendment, Section 1 of Article XVII of the Oregon Constitution, is worded today precisely as it was when it was first adopted by Oregon voters, nearly one hundred years ago. It is of no small significance that until six years ago, not once, in the more than 90 years that this constitutional provision has existed, did a court use or attempt to use it as a basis for invalidating a voter approved initiative. The provision was only applied to legislatively proposed amendments, not amendments initiated by the people themselves.
When you read the last sentence of this section, you will understand why for 90 years the courts never applied the section to constitutional amendments proposed by the people, and why no honest judge would have even considered doing so.
Here is the last sentence of Article XVII, Section 1, the so called single-amendment provision that the Oregon Supreme Court has used to throw out half-a-dozen voter-approved laws: "This article shall not be construed to impair the right of the people to amend this Constitution by vote upon an initiative petition therefore."
There it is, plain as day. This provision, which merely describes the procedure by which the legislative assembly may propose constitutional amendments for the peoples approval or rejection at the ballot box, concludes with a clear instruction to the courts that the provision is not to be used to impair the peoples right to amend the constitution.
It would not have been clearer, had he drafters said: This section proscribes how the legislature may propose constitutional amendments. Judges, dont use it to make it difficult for the people to amend this Constitution by initiative.
Remember, this section was written by those who were actively using the initiative process at the time. They were restricting the state legislature, not themselves.
How does the court deal with those final words of the so-called single amendment rule? It simply ignores them. Like the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the words have no meaning at all to liberal judges
Truth is, there is no such thing as a "single amendment requirement" for initiatives anywhere in the Oregon Constitution. Neither the state legislature nor the people themselves have passed a measure or bill to create such a requirement. The court just made one up to use as a tool to rein in the out-of-control "ignorant masses."
They fabricated a new rule and then used it to throw out the victims rights measure, saying that the measure contained more than one amendment to the constitution.
Next they threw out a campaign finance reform measure. Then they threw out the decade-old term limits measure, and then two measures that protected private property from government takings.
One minute those laws were there, approved by a majority of voters. The next minute, poof, one by one, they were gone! The hundreds of thousands of signatures collected; the millions of dollars spent educating the voters; and the millions of votes cast, became all for naught. At the whim of seven dishonest judges, the six voter-approved measures just disappeared, as if they had never existed.
In all my years in politics, I have never seen anything approaching this level of corruption. The theft perpetrated by the Oregon Supreme Court is greater than anything ever perpetrated by organized crime. It is racketeering on a grand scale.
The damage is truly immeasurable. Not only has the law been shanghaied; not only have property rights and other basic civil rights stolen from citizens; not only has the will of the people overturned, but hundreds of thousands of voters have come to believe, quite logically, that their votes really dont matter. Many have stopped voting and signing petitions altogether.
It is hard to argue with the logic of the voters who are tuning out They are partly right. Their votes really did mean nothing. In the final analysis, the only votes that really counted were those of the seven black-robed thieves sitting on the Oregon Supreme Court.
As a side note, it is almost certain that the editorial boards of the 22 daily newspapers across the state know the judges on the Oregon Supreme Court were cheating, when they threw out all of these measures. They know something is amiss, but they keep silent, because as fellow liberals, they personally are glad to see the measures gone, even if the court had to cheat to get rid of them. For them, the end justifies the means.
Long gone are the days when journalists were fair and impartial watchdogs over government. By their silence, they have become complicit in the court's crimes. Here's just one piece of evidence that the editors are not ignorant of the courts malfeasance:
When the challenge to the decade old Term Limits law was first filed with the court, The Oregonian newspaper published an editorial stating that even though the board didnt like Term Limits, this lawsuit was no way to get rid of it. The editorial asked the obvious question: If a measure that does nothing but limit the terms of elected officials is not one amendment to the Constitution, then what is?
Thats what the editorial board said when the Term Limits case was first filed, before it was decided.
However, after the case ultimately was decided and the Oregon Supreme Court threw out the Term Limits measure, The Oregonian editorial board was completely silent. Not a single word was written criticizing or questioning the decision. Never mind that the courts reasoning was absurd or that its decision was entirely without legal authority. The Oregonian editorial board apparently liked the outcome, and therefore, justified, as liberals so often do, the means.
Sure, the court broke the law. Sure, the court exceeded its authority. But because the editors agreed with the end, they ignored the means. In a very real sense, the horrific collapse of judicial ethics and wholesale theft of the rights of the people has been made possible by a reprehensible collapse of journalistic ethics with the daily newspapers of the state.
How long do you think those Supreme Court justices would have continued down this road, if the newspapers of the state had told the voters of the state that their elected judges were exceeding their authority, nullifying voter-approved laws using fabricated rules? Not long. For one thing, had the editors made the issue a topic of public debate, not one of those judges would have run unopposed in the next election.
Unfortunately, the problem of judicial theft is not confined to Oregon. Floridas supreme court is as bad or worse. Most conservative measures are never even allowed on the ballot in Florida, because they fail to win the courts approval for circulation. Like Oregon Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court simply ignores the law that says that the court cant do what the justices want to do.
If you think the Oregon Supreme Court is drunk with power, the Florida Supreme Court, the same court that in 2000 tried to rewrite Florida election law to make Al Gore president, is perhaps worse. That court would not allow on the Florida ballot any measure that would cut taxes. The justices opined that a measure that cuts taxes automatically makes less money available for government to spend, and that taxes and spending are two entirely different subjects.
By the court's "logic," all tax cutting measure were automatically deemed to be more than one subject because they also reduced spending. What utter nonsense!
Frustrated tax activists in Florida reacted to the courts arrogance by placing a measure on the ballot exempting from the states single subject rule any measure that limits governments ability to raise revenue. Voters easily approved the measure, which should have meant that taxpayer advocates then could place measures on the ballot to limit governments ability to increase revenues. It didnt. The court simply ignored the new law.
The Florida Supreme Court still today will not allow on the ballot a measure that requires voter approval for new taxes. The court says that such a measure violates the single subject rule, even though such measures are exempted from that rule by the state Constitution. The court simply doesnt care what the Constitution says.
Remember, the Constitution only means what the court says it means!
Determined activists in Florida refused to give up. They focused on property rights. A second measure was proposed to carve a single-subject exemption for initiatives that protect private property rights. The court rejected that amendment altogether; not even allowing it to be placed on the ballot. Apparently, not only does the Florida Supreme Court use the single subject rule to exclude measures it doesnt like, but it wont even allow voters to change the law to limit its power to do so.
Recently, ever courageous and politically incorrect Ward Connerly filed his anti-affirmative action proposal in Florida as a ballot measure, just as he had in other states. Florida activists had forewarned Connerly that the liberal justices of the Florida Supreme Court would not allow the measure to be placed on the ballot, because it was comprised of four basic provisions, even though all four dealt with the same subject.
Connerly decided to break his one measure into four separate measures and run four separate signature drives to avoid Floridas single subject pitfall. Unbelievably, the Florida Supreme Court, rejected all four measures, saying that each of them contained more than one subject.
With calloused arrogance, the court refused to allow the affirmative action issue on the ballot in Florida, citing of course the single subject rule, even though Connerly had broken his one measure into four separate petitions.
Finally, frustrated initiative activists in Florida took their problem with the single subject rule to the U.S. Supreme Court, rightly claiming violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court predictably refused the case, bowing as it typically does to state law in such matters.
Similar problems have arisen with the courts in Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and other states. Liberal, elitist judges have placed their personal views over the lawfully expressed will of the people, and used their judicial authority to create or destroy lawfully proposed or passed measures. In those states, the only votes that count are those of the judges.
The judiciary today poses the greatest threat to the values, the principles and the freedoms upon which this nation was established. Many judges have exhibited such arrogance and calloused disregard for the clear meaning of the law, that reining them in has become critical and must become the highest priority of freedom loving Americans everywhere. Judges have become a law unto themselves. they have become despots.
For a while, I wondered who was the greater threat to this nation, the liberal activist judges, who violate the law to further their own political views and agenda, or the dishonest editors, who cover for them. I have come to realize that they are not separate at all, but part and parcel of the same disease.
Like the liberal judges, the liberal editors are amoral, elitist, socialists, who see government as the answer to the worlds ills. To them, the rest of us are the unwashed, the ignorant masses. They consider it their responsibility to free us from our obsession with religion, traditional morality, patriotism, capitalism, and the ownership of private property. The means they employ to do so are largely irrelevant to them. Breaking a few laws or fabricating a few new ones is a price they are willing to pay.
The remaining question is: How much longer are we going to let these arrogant, lawbreaking judges steal our most basic right to decide our own destinies at the ballot box? In the final analysis, the ballot box is all that stands between civilized revolt and violent revolt. Our own history illustrates that it is either the vote or the musket. Steal the former, and the latter eventually follows.
Bill Sizemore is the executive director of the Oregon Taxpayers Union. He was the Republican nominee for governor of Oregon in 1998, and has authored several voter-approved ballot measures. His official website is www.billsizemore.net.
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
If one still has the latter...
I don't know whether Judical Watch can do much given that these are state Supreme Court justices, and SCOTUS refuses to hear such cases. Is there an organization dedicated to seeing such justices voted out of office (where elected) or impeached (where appointed)?
Stay Safe !
There is more to judicial tyranny than a federal judge ordering a Ten Commandments monument out of the rotunda of the Alabama courts building. There is a worldwide systematic power-grab going on and you probably aren't even aware of it.
Liberals, who are unable to win a vast worldwide culture war in a democratic form, are increasingly turning to the courts to wage their battle. Unfortunately, judges steeped in a liberal ideology and heady with power they have arrogated to themselves are responding with decisions bordering on judicial tyranny. The 'Cult of the Judge' (Judge Robert Bork's new book)
It is not reasoned judgment that supports the Court's decision; only personal predilection. Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought tomean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
" Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. "
The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).
Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989). Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 ( ... Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Is there an organization dedicated to seeing such justices voted out of office (where elected) or impeached (where appointed)?
The more they deviate from a constitution, the more they become the most protected and revered liberal specie on earth.
Hey Ted, I think it's the people who have control of these issues, not a minority of dwindling politicians acting on some crusade to preserve their horrible legacies.
Not necessary. There's still a constitutional remedy that congress has not yet tried, and SCOTUS has nothing to do with it. The thing to do is to elect some congressmen with enough spine to deal with the problem appropriately.
See the US Constitution, Article III; The founders foresaw this problem, and gave us the means to forestall it- if we use it:
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. 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;--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.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
And for those who say, Well it cant happen here, then think again. Its already happening here you simply havent been paying attention. One of the great ironies of history is that those who cheered, applauded and voted themselves into tyranny were the ones most surprised when the consequences of that tyranny came knocking on their midnight door.
Given the level of sheer, murderous hatred ratcheting up on the Left, that war is a certainty.
You are absolutely correct .... were this a 19th century parallel we're probably in the 1850's by now.
God help us when it gets here, because you know the liberals are going to scream for UN intervention if they get the chance.
Is there an organization dedicated to seeing such justices voted out of office (where elected) or impeached (where appointed)?
The Free Congress Foundation has been in the fight over judicial selection since 1980 and in 1992 launched the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project. In 1996 we turned our efforts to building a coalition of grassroots organizations who want to see a more restrained judiciary.
Coalition building began in November of 1996 and produced a coalition of 260 organizations which signed a letter protesting judicial activism delivered to the Senate on January 27, 1997. One hundred more joined them for another letter on July 27, 1997, and 106 more joined on January 27, 1998. The coalition has just surged passed 700 organizations and continues to grow! The Free Congress Foundation Coalition Information
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.
The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.
In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community. Fed-Soc.org - The Federalist Society
America is engulfed in the fires of a Culture War, and federal judges for fifty years have been whipping the flames to a white-hot heat. Federal courts have usurped the power to define whether we and our loved ones are truly "persons" deserving of constitutional protections, and whether our religious beliefs are "acceptable" to the I.R.S., thus being constitutionally sheltered from destructive taxation. This "imperial judiciary" has also approved the exclusive teaching that all of us are nothing more than animals and has ruled that when we oppose gay rights activism, our only possible motive is hatred for homosexuals.
These "Reconstructionist" judges (popularly labeled "liberals" and "judicial activists") and their postmodernist allies throughout American culture must be repelled. The responsibility for such a counter-attack falls on us Constitutionalists (popularly known as "conservatives" and "judicial restraintists").
This "Manifesto" is a declaration of the fundamental Constitutionalist principles which made America great and for which we must fight in today's Culture War. These are the standards by which we must evaluate judicial decisions, select federal judges, elect other officials, and promulgate all other constitutional/judicial policy.
All the principles set forth below are inseparably related to one another and are indispensable to a comprehensive and consistent body of Constitutionalist theory. The "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, asserted that "knowledge is power." Understanding clearly and supporting completely this body of principles will unite and empower us as Constitutionalists to fight effectively to reclaim our Constitution, our culture, and our courts. The Constitutionalist Manifesto
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.