Skip to comments.Congressman Billybob's Speech at Today's March for Justice II
Posted on 04/07/2005 5:29:30 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
click here to read article
Not that I'm hinting, but if someone would do my homework, I could read the manual and figure out how to put the photos on. Could have been on sooner, but my return home was delayed by a beer and the carryings-on of a certain founder, the world's most engaging presenter, and a Freeper who will go unnamed, but who did order a Filibuster Burger. You know who you are.
Photos tomorrow evening, when I call in my markers and ask Mr. SoVa to post some, and send the rest to Kristinn for identification of the suspects.
Meanwhile, all your photo are belong to us.
A well thought out speech is always the best and this one is a winner. I sent it over to R. Robert Monterrosa, Esq at the Canyon News about 8:30 this morning just to give him something to chew on.
On May 24th, 2001 when Kofi Annan had the meeting with our Justices at the Supreme Court I had the feeling that this unprecendented meeting would hold ill fruits for the American people and our form of Governemnt. I just had a hunch that our Constitution would be shredding or burning while they discussed the New World Order.
Justice OConnor apparently thinks our nation can get along fine without the Constitution to constrain our government and we the people don't need all the rights and freedoms we now have.
Until once again, it comes across loud and clear to everyone that "We the people are the ultimate sovereign power" we will continue to lose our nation with all the rights and freedoms so many fought and died to give us.
IMO, we need to make a clean sweep through our legislative halls and bring in a full 100% new set of elected Americans who are not corrupted to the glory of power and status.
These people need to be on the exact same Social Security system that the American citizens have, not a retirement system designed for kings and queens.
One question for you Sir.
At the end of this speech did you snatch your hat from your head and stomp it flat?
Wouldn't that chap a bunch of arses? :)
It would be high point indeed in my life to see any of them nominated and to witness the reaction, hysteria, screeching, and apoplexy of the liberals in response.
The photo in #67 was from a Photobucket.com album.
Here's the photo link:
I know that with Photobucket, you can just truncate the image (jpg) part of the URL and see the whole album.
So here's the album:
Yesterday I was able to view it, but today I can't.
Most of the shots in it are of the speakers.
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx
I hope it didn't cause any hassles with management.
I have an affinity for that passage because it is the lead paragraph in my next book (on Paine), entitled, These are the times that try men's souls."
John / Billybob
Mae Magouirk safe for now. See Tekgnosis for further details.
Tell the Media to report the REAL Schiavo polls!
My account, etc. of Terri Schindler's Funeral Mass:
You have FReepmail...
Congressman Billybob: Thank you for writing and presenting this excellent and well thought out speech.
While I generally agree with the pretext of your speech, that there is a serious problem with our judiciary, I must disagree with your conclusions. I agree that we are in desperate need of change in the judicial...that is to say...unelected branch of government. The problem is that your solutions are well, fairly timid. And in the long run will merely nibble at the margins of the problem rather than correcting it.
I think that changing the cast on the SCOTUS, while positive, ignores the bigger problem: the unelected nature of the court and it's ability to effectively dictate from the bench. Changing the make-up of the bench, while palliative, does nothing to cure the underlying problem. Yes, we might end up with some better judges who might act with more restraint. But what then? What happens when they retire or pass away? What happens when one or more of those "better" justices decide that they really like the trappings of power?
I think we need to start taking a closer look at what justices are allowed to do, how they are appointed, and how long they should be in office.
I hear a lot of talk on FR about separate and co-equal branches of government. What I'm not so sure about is whether that's really what was intended from the beginning, or whether that's even a good thing. Keep in mind that the judicial branch is not elected. I would hope that a branch of government that is unelected and almost completely unaccountable to the people would be subordinate to, not equal to the other branches of government. How ironic then that this unelected branch of government has, over time, become supreme over the other two elected branches. Ironic, but also predictable. You draw the analogy of children with matches. If we give children a warehouse full of matches, can we be all that shocked when sooner or later a group of them starts a fire?
Since time for me this morning is short, I need to conclude my thoughts sooner than I'd like. Some ideas to think about.
1. You come from a legal background and are thus taught to respect the law, the institutions that make them, and those which interpret them. I come from a political background. Are judges objective referees of the law? Or unelected politicians with lifetime sinecure?
2. Marbury vs Madison. An oft quoted case that is the bedrock of judicial review in the U.S. But viewed from a political/power context, what was it?
3. There is a lot of complaining of late about the judiciary from conservative political leaders. But I've noticed that despite the complaints, we still see laws of questionable constitutionality being passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive. Despite excesses on the part of the judiciary over many years, changes to the law regarding what the judiciary can review and movement toward reining in the judiciary seem to be just a little too hard to actually do. A skeptical individual might ask the question: "who benefits?"
Now that has my vote!