[tpaine]

It's pretty obvious that the President is also obligated by his oath. -- Why isn't he enforcing the law against these "activist judges and rogue courts"?

We don't need to change our constitution, - we need to change the political structure thay allows it to be violated.

[Ff--150]

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?

Again! The grand illusion is that the Constitution is still in force! Wish I was wrong....=-(

[WestPoint90]

It makes me sick to see how disrespected the POTUS is as well. I remember as a kid seeing the press get on their feet whenever the P came into speak. Yesterday when he made his remarks to people in the front stood up and he acknowledged them. That donkey(ass)from NBC the young one with the grey hair just sat there looking boringly into his palm pilot. I would freak-in torch the place. Scott McClellan should enforce it. You don't like, don't come. No problem.

To the subject at hand, I pray we find a cure for the moral laryngitis plaguing our nations so called republican leaders.

[weegee]

Is there any mechanism to remove a judge from the bench? They are sworn in.

I've read that in Massachusetts the state Supreme Court "required" the legislators to pass a law legalizing same sex marriage even though such interference from the Judicial branch and Legislative branch is supposedly explicitly prohibited in Massachusetts' state constitution.

Someone approved those same sex marriage forms in San Francisco. There is a rogue judge who is ignoring state law.

Seems to me that these people should be able to be taken off the bench. Would they be permitted to stay there if they were caught taking bribes?

There has to be a mechanism. In California the Attorney General seems to be slow to respond to the anarchist judge who does not believe in the rule of law.

The constitution could use some explicit language prohibiting same sex marriage because if it isn't added soon, in 10 years you will see an amendment including sexual preference along with classifications such as race, creed, sex, and color.

[King Black Robe]

It is a crying damned shame but thems the facts. I will support no one who doesn't support -- with gusto -- the FMA.

[Political Junkie Too]

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

For instance, Congress already has the power under Article III 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. "

In order to get rid of "activist judges," Congress can eliminate all the current judges seated on current circuit courts, Congress can then realign all the circuit courts (hello 9th Circuit), and then the President can renominate judges to the new circuit courts. Any judge with a history of activism can either not be renominated, or not be confirmed by the Judiciary Committee.

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?

The problem with an amendment to the Constitution is that the Constitution is supposed to be a limiting powers document of the Federal Government, not of the people. All the wording is about saying what the Federal Government is and what it can and can not do. Everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the states and the people. We already tried amending the Constitution to limit the rights of the people -- see the 19th amendment and how well that worked out. The only language limiting the rights of people are in their roles as Constitutional officers, so even that is about limiting the Government.

I would love to see a debate in Congress on realigning the Federal Courts and getting rid of sitting activist judges. That ought to put a scare in people, and maybe reel in runaway courts a bit.

-PJ

[FairOpinion]

We need to look at how those activists liberal judges got to where they are: they have been appointed by Dem presidents. THIS is the root-cause of the problem: Dem presidents and liberal Congress, who blocks appointment of conservative judges.

There is a very simple solution:

ELECT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, SO JUDGES, WHO RULE BASED ON THE LAW, NOT LIBERAL ACTIVISM, WILL BE APPOINTED.

Constitutional Amendment is a big thing, it has to be passed, than ratified by the states, etc -- all, because we have a bunch of liberal judges who legislate from the bench. We may pass this Amendment, but what about the next liberal issue the judges take up? We can't keep amending the Constitution about every special issue.

We need to solve the REAL problem, which is the liberal judges on the bench.

That is why it is ESSENTIAL for the conservative agenda, to re-elect President Bush and send him more Republicans to Congress, so conservative judges, who interpret the law, can be nominated, confirmed and appointed.

[Grig]

If society doesn't have the collective will to enforce it's own laws, then no President can wave a magic wand to make people fall in line.

It's not the president, it's not even the system, it is the personal corruption and/or cowardice that infects nearly everybody in the system. I fear we are headed toward a violent conflict in society no matter how these issues are dealt with.

[genxer]

I agree with amending the constitution but not to address the marriage issue to address the court issues. The place were the judiciary and has been able to run wild is the point in time that the senate started being an elected body. If someone would repeal THAT amendment the juduciary would be corrected.

[Montfort]

I would not put it past a bunch of judges to say that the Amendment is unconstitutional because it conflicts with "core" equal protection clause in the 5th amendment or because it contravenes the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution.

There have already been cases where judges interpret the law as X. legislature and governor pass alaw saying that the specific law is not x but rather Y, and judges refuse to respect the legislative will.

[hosepipe]

Mix the republican (majority) party that has absolutely no backbone with liberal judges with absolutely no respect for the constitution and what do you have ?

THE CURRENT SITUATION... outlined in this thread
The answer to the problem is bloody obvious..

[Yosemitest]

I'm really angry about this! Rush is right and I need to work on my patience. I know from my Bible studies that when Christ returns, before He returns, it will be worse than in the days of Sodom when homosexuals were willing to tear down a house to get to strangers.

BUT, I'm ashamed to say that I want to see a good ole fashon lynching, starting with the mayor of San Fran, continuing on to the people who issued those licenses to homosexuals, and including the people who preformed the ceremonies.

Malachi 4:1-3

1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

---

FOOTNOTES:
F6: in them: or, to them


---

Leviticus 20:13

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

---

Romans 1:16-32

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; ^F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so ^F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain ^F8 God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

---

FOOTNOTES:
F1: declared: Gr. determined
F2: for obedience...: or, to the obedience of faith
F3: with: or, in
F4: with: or, in
F5: among: or, in
F6: in them: or, to them
F7: so...: or, that they may be
F8: to retain: or, to acknowledge

 

---

What else needs to be said. Homosexuals should repent, while there is still time and ask Christ for help.

[goldstategop]

Yes... what about a law that allows Congress to override these rogue courts? Congress could pass a law requiring any court decision that invalidates a law to get a majority vote in both Houses Of Congress with the President's signature BEFORE it can take effect. That way judges don't toss out laws simply due to ideological bias or erroneous reasoning. The courts might declare such a law unconstitutional but then they'd be perceived as protecting their turf than acceding to the will of the people. Its a worth a try.

[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

[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

[Kryptonite]

Glad to see Rush finally seeing the light.

Top reason to vote Bush - the courts.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

BUMP

[Travis McGee]

Unless something is done, sooner or later the "rule of five" (black-robed commissars) is going to run into "rule 308."

[Phyto Chems]

IMPEACH the bad judges and do it NOW, get some backbone RINO's. Not in this life time, sorry to say.

[Mo1]

What we have is a President who still believes in the Constitution and the Rule of Law .. Sadly we have some activists Judges and Politicians that don't.

By the President endorsing this Amendment, he is also calling to the people to take notice of what is going on. To take notice that the right of debate and discussion have been taken away from us ...

The President himself cannot pass an Amendment .. only the States and the Legislative Branches can do that. It is up to us "We The People" to take a stand and tell our elected officials ... enough is enough with these activists who ignore the rules to get what they want.