[Rush] Most Powerful Man on Earth Powerless Against Rogue Courts and Activist Judges

Rush Is Right ^ | 2/25/04 | Rush

[tpaine]

The president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world we assume. We think. Do you know why we have to do this, according to the president? Do you know why we need a constitutional amendment to see to it that everybody understands and knows what marriage means? Do you know why?

Why? It's not just that. It's not just some people breaking the law.

It's that we're not enforcing the law!

We've already got law. But since nobody's willing to enforce it, we've got to put another law on the books, this time in the Constitution.

The president of the United States said, We've got rogue courts and activist judges who are legislating from the bench. Something is terribly wrong.

Now, you and I all know this is nothing new, and we all know this is terribly wrong. But for the most powerful man in the world to stand up and say, There's nothing we can do about activist judges legislating from the bench and rogue courts imposing their version of law and order on society? There's nothing we can do about it, folks. Nothing we can do.

There's nothing currently in the statutes that allows us to stop this. There's nothing we can do to stop these people from doing what they're doing. Instead, we're going to have to go amend the Constitution so they can't do it in this area. Okay, let's assume that we amend the Constitution and let's say that we get this Defense of Marriage Amendment -- and I'm all for it, don't misunderstand. I just think it's a crying, damned shame that we have to go this far. Pick any other institution that you want. Pick any other tradition in this country that you want and imagine this kind of thing happening to it. I just think it is absolutely outrageous for the most powerful -- and this is not a criticism of the president. Don't misunderstand here. I realize many of you may think I'm being critical. I'm not.

I'm...I'm...I'm... I feel totally powerless today. I feel more powerless than I have ever felt in my life. We've got the president of the United States, who himself is complaining about activist judges and rogue courts. We've got the president of the United States who is claiming that they are more powerful than the Constitution, that they are more powerful than existing statute, that they are more powerful than he is.

[King Black Robe]

The FMA changes everything, in the sense of amending away our inalienable rights.

That's a ridiculous charge. The word marriage is taken. It is congruent with the natural design of humankind. It has been defined since the beginning of civilization. It was clearly understood when our Constitution was written. Your charge is preposterous. And just what kind of rights do you see in allowing judicial rule to dictate all cultural decisions to us from on black-robed high?

[tpaine]

Grig wrote: No system can overcome the effects of a population full of people who are morally corrupt. I'm not saying everybody is, but enough are that changing the system won't fix anything.

______________________________________


Every era in our history has had that generalization thrown about..

People today are no more "morally corrupt" than at any other time in our republic.. Politically corrupt, you may be right..
But every generation has had its saints & sinners..

[Political Junkie Too]

Your plan would never work.

Are you saying that it is easier to amend the Constitution than it is to get Congress to debate the use of its own powers?

Even if it doesn't result in Congress reorganizing the Judiciary, perhaps the debate itself would scare the bench into being less activist for fear of their jobs.

What does it take to start the debate? Is it enough for Tom DeLay and some other Representatives to introduce a bill?

-PJ

[FairOpinion]

"Congress has Constitutional authority to realign the courts."

===

Except there are too many Democrats in today's Congress. They won't even confirm Bush's nominees, much less do anything to even get rid of the current activist judges.

The only feasible solution is to keep electing Republican Presidents and a filibuster-proof Republican majority in Congress for the next 20 years, to slowly get rid of the activists judges.

[Political Junkie Too]

I agree with this statement.

If there are too many Democrats to talk Article III powers, then there are also probably too many Democrats to talk Constitution amendment.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Pat Buchanan: Time for the counterrevolution.

Yet, the real power to rein in and corral a renegade court lies with our Congress. Under Article III, as South Carolina law professor William Quirk has long argued, Congress "determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts."

"Congress has the power to establish or abolish all federal courts except the Supreme Court and ... the power to abolish includes the power to limit their jurisdiction."

Congress, writes Quirk, "could re-enact the Defense Of Marriage Act restricting marriage to men and women with one sentence, 'This law is not subject to review by the lower federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.' Then the issue would return to the states, where President Bush and the Democratic candidates say it should be."

-PJ

[tpaine]

Would you then support the concept that a future super-majority could pass an amendment to modify our individual RKBA's into a collective government approved licensed procedure?

I'd support the concept that a super-majority can pass such an Amendment,

Our RKBA's is part of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, & property. These rights cannot be 'amended' away.

but not that they should, and I would oppose it. The founders sought to protect us from tyrannies of the majority by providing the safeguards of supermajority requirements.

Exactly.. Such a majority would be supposedly be rational enough to avoid passing 'laws' that would lead to civil war.

When we have tyrannies of the super-majority that infringe on our endowed rights, the social contract is fully abrogated, and all of the predictable consequences will follow.

Yep. I say a FMA is beyond the scope of the powers granted in our constitution.

Where does the Constitution limit how the Constitution may be Amended?

In the principles embodied in our BOR's as a whole.. -- And in the 14th amendment, which was needed to explain those principles to rogue states after the civil war..
Now we need bold politicians to once again explain those principles to most everyone..
And in particular to our rogue courts.

You're gleaning meaning from a penumbra here.

Life, liberty & property rights are not "premumbras", as I explained just above, and you ignore.

The laws of physics don't even limit how the Constitution may be Amended. Article V is the beginning and the end of the limits.

Physics? -- Common sense sets the limit. We cannot amend away our rights.

If 2/3 of both chambers and 3/4 of the states willingly Amend the BoR out of existence, the Constitution empowers them to do so, and civil war is the only recourse.

Yep. you make my point on common sense.

In any case, a CMA doesn't infringe in any inalienable right, and protects the rights of the states.

Nope, it would infringe on States power to regulate the civil law aspects of marriage, imo, and thereby violate states citizens rights to enact those laws.

I agree that it shouldn't have come to this, and a few dozen judicial impeachments over the past 100 years would have been sufficient to prevent it, but here we are.

Appears that's about all we can agree on..

[tpaine]

You aren't reading my reasoning in #35.. I've elaborated at 47. -- Read that, then argue the issues or be ignored.
Your choice.

[King Black Robe]

I agree with everything Sabertooth has said. No use repeating it.

[tpaine]

Funny, -- I didn't notice Saber saying my arguments are "ridiculous" or
"preposterous".
Were you repeating a 'penumbra'?

[King Black Robe]

I didn't say Saber agreed with everything I said, I DID say that I agree with everything he said.

tpaine, I mean no offense to you personally, but I think saying the FMA takes away our inalienable rights is preposterous. Activist judges and rogue city officials are the ones taking away our rights. The FMA will simply do what you claim the 14th amendment did -- replacing "rogue states" with "rogue judges" -- it will clarify a detail that should be abundantly clear already, but isn't. Isn't that what you said the 14th did? So there is a precedent of using the constitutional process for clarification per your earlier post.

[ravingnutter]

In your plan, you are advocating that the President choose new judicial nominees to replace the others...they can't get the ones confirmed that are nominated now because of the Dems blocking them (see the article I linked to previously). How would that change in this situation? The Dems would love your plan...they could block nominations 'til the cows come home, the courts would be so backed up that nothing would get done. It just doesn't make sense to go that route.

[Reactionary]

I think we need to draft and enact laws at the state level that will allow the people to impeach judges and remove them.

If liberals want to play, we'll play.

[Grig]

Perhaps. I'm sick today, it kinda drains the optimism out of me, ya know.

[Political Junkie Too]

How would that change in this situation? The Dems would love your plan...they could block nominations 'til the cows come home, the courts would be so backed up that nothing would get done. It just doesn't make sense to go that route.

In my plan, the courts would be disbanded as we know them, and then reconstituted from scratch. For the Democrats to block nominees would be to run government with no circuit courts at all.

It is a brinksmanship exercise meant to play hardball, using powers already granted without resorting to an amendment.

-PJ

[tahiti]

"I think that there are still options to be explored short of a Constitutional amendment."

You make some excellent constitutional points in your analysis. Thank you.

[Pagey]

I sure would like to know how many of these activist judges doing this are appointees from the 8 Clintoon years.Is this part of Clintoon action of firing ALL of the Attornets General when he entered the Office of the President in 1992??? Somehow I figure it works into he and his (alleged and for show only) spouses grand plan for destroying America as we know it.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

Most Powerful Man on Earth Powerless Against Rogue Courts and Activist Judges - Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: I know a lot of you probably are all excited and happy today that action has finally been taken by the president. He, at 10:45 today, gave a statement endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it was a very strong statement. The president went to great lengths to point out the union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution honored and encouraged, not just in our culture but in all cultures and by every religious faith. As I have been saying: this transcends countries, nations, populations.

Ages and ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitments of a husband and wife promote the welfare of children, the stability of society. And the point the president made is that marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society and governmen. By recognizing and protecting marriage serves the interests of all people. Now, you know, this is the thing that I've been claiming. I mean, all of these people that do not fit certain definitions -- and look, we all -- you know, I don't qualify as a woman! So there are certain things I can't do. But I'm not out there demanding equal rights.

I mean, there's just certain things I can't do, certain places I can't go because I'm not a woman. Same thing with women and men. Children, adults, we have -- nobody is able to do anything and everything whenever they want to. You know, we have these definitions. Any time you have these traditions and institutions that have evolved over time, that people come along and want admittance to when they don't fit the definition, when they're not entitled based on the terms. The institutions have to be weakened in order for certain people to be granted their so-called equality. Now, there's something about all of this, though, that just troubles me.

In the first place, I'm watching the media react to this today, and to the media this is just the latest escape from the humdrum and boredom of the everyday world of covering the news. They are excited. They are jazzed. They are going wall-to-wall with this. They've got experts from this corner of the world and experts from that corner of the world. The point is the media is dealing only with the process here. They're talking about, "What's the president's purpose? Is this a political ploy? How's this going to play for the Democrats during the campaign? What do you have to do to get a constitutional amendment ratified, since it takes so long and it's so hard to do? Does the president really want this to get done or is this just an election-year ploy?" and about every other third idea they come back to, "Is this just an election-year ploy?"

The media, totally caught up in the process of all this and not in the meaning of it. And to me the only story is the meaning of this. Take a look here at what is happening. The president said it himself. The president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world we assume. We think. Do you know why we have to do this, according to the president? Do you know why we need a constitutional amendment to see to it that everybody understands and knows what marriage means? Do you know why? [Studio interruption] Why? It's not just that. It's not just some people breaking the law.

It's that we're not enforcing the law! We've already got law. But since nobody's willing to enforce it, we've got to put another law on the books, this time in the Constitution. The president of the United States said, We've got rogue courts and activist judges who are legislating from the bench. Something is terribly wrong. Now, you and I all know this is nothing new, and we all know this is terribly wrong. But for the most powerful man in the world to stand up and say, There's nothing we can do about activist judges legislating from the bench and rogue courts imposing their version of law and order on society? There's nothing we can do about it, folks. Nothing we can do.

There's nothing currently in the statutes that allows us to stop this. There's nothing we can do to stop these people from doing what they're doing. Instead, we're going to have to go amend the Constitution so they can't do it in this area. Okay, let's assume that we amend the Constitution and let's say that we get this Defense of Marriage Amendment -- and I'm all for it, don't misunderstand. I just think it's a crying, damned shame that we have to go this far. Pick any other institution that you want. Pick any other tradition in this country that you want and imagine this kind of thing happening to it. I just think it is absolutely outrageous for the most powerful -- and this is not a criticism of the president. Don't misunderstand here. I realize many of you may think I'm being critical. I'm not.

I'm...I'm...I'm... I feel totally powerless today. I feel more powerless than I have ever felt in my life. We've got the president of the United States, who himself is complaining about activist judges and rogue courts. We've got the president of the United States who is claiming that they are more powerful than the Constitution, that they are more powerful than existing statute, that they are more powerful than he is. We can't stop these people. We've got to accept them and do an end run around them on the Constitution. The correct thing to be able to do is to amend the Constitution so we can get rid of these people who violate their oath.

What we need to do is come up with a way to get rid of these people who are single-handedly trying to destroy the culture of this country by taking the moral underpinnings of our law out from underneath the law. You get rid of the moral underpinnings from law and you may as well not have law. All you've got is a bunch of people who are doing what they want to do when they want to do it, and (raspberry) up your nose if you don't like it, and what are we doing? Okay, in this one instance they are legislating and roguing far more areas of life than just marriage. We can't amend the Constitution every damn time a rogue court or an out-of-control judge decides to start violating his oath of office. This is not the solution.

It may be the solution for marriage in this instance, but there's something terribly, terribly wrong here. And, folks, I don't want you to, again, misunderstand me here. I am not being critical of the president. I am in stunned amazement. I am in stunned amazement that there's nothing that can be done to get rid of these people, that what we are being told is, "They are who they are. They are doing what they're doing, and we've got to find a way around them." We have to find a way around the lawbreakers. This Massachusetts Supreme Court is standing the rule of law on its head. It is legislating from the bench. It is telling the Massachusetts legislature what law it must pass. That does not happen in a constitutional republic. That does not happen in a country that abides by its own Constitution.

The Massachusetts legislature is doing the same thing: trying to find an end run around this court instead of dealing with this court by saying to it, "You can't do it." Where's the civil disobedience here? The civil disobedience ought to be somebody standing up to the judges and saying, "Screw you!" The civil disobedience ought to be aimed at the people who are forcing lawlessness on us. Instead, we're respecting the civil disobedience of those who break the law and we're calling it "civil disobedience" when it's law-breaking. And we're acting afraid of them! And we're acting powerless like there's nothing we can do to stop them.

Well, I've about had it. I really have. None of this makes any sense to me. Not as a person who is a genuine, true conservative and not a Republican or a Democrat, but understands the notion of individual liberty and constitutional republicanism as enshrined by the Founders. What's going on here would have these people rolling over in their graves -- and if they were alive, they wouldn't be putting up with it. This is not at all what they intended, and the people behind all this know it full well. It's... you know, we sit here and laugh about it because there are certain elements about it that are funny but this is not the only instance of this.

I mean it is -- the president's doing what he can. These judges that are good, that he's appointing, the Democrats are doing everything they can to subvert these people, even by destroying their lives if they have to, and their reputations. And I know what that's like. And you don't just sit around and let it happen! You don't just sit around and find a way around so that it can keep happening, but..that it doesn't work because I'm telling you there aren't enough amendments to the Constitution to deal with all of this activism and all of this roguism. There just aren't. And even if there were the amendments, there's not the time to get them all ratified.

________________________________________

tpaine,

This article contains some superlative observations by El Rushbo on this whole "marriage" thing for gays and lesbos....worthy of a full posting...

"Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt" -- 11th FReeper Commandment.

FReegards,

- ConservativeStLouisGuy

[tpaine]

I make my points by excerpting the parts of Rush's statements I agree with; --- just as you make yours..

That's what debate is all about, where I come from..

[Jim Noble]

Also, can't Congress pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the courts? Can't Congress say that questions of marriage and the definition of marriage are out of jurisdiction to the courts?

They certainly can.

In fact, they have a Constitutional duty to "regulate and make exceptions to" the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

However, to do so involves the possibility that the permanent incumbency they have designed for themselves might come to an end.

This, they will never do.