Mad Judiciary Strikes Again

MND ^ | May 14, 2005 | Lee Duigon

[Nasty McPhilthy]

Well, a federal judge has done it again--nullified the results of an election. And as usual, he did it for the very best of reasons: the ACLU asked him to.

The victim this time is the people of Nebraska, who voted by an overwhelming margin (70% to 30%) to amend their constitution. The trigger man this time is a federal judge named Joseph "Election? Don't make me laugh! HAHAHA!" Bataillon.

Get this: Bataillon ruled that it was unconstitutional for the people to amend their constitution. Bypassing those shibboleths currently in vogue among his judicial colleagues--Canadian law, European Court rulings, and personal pique--Judge Bataillon went straight for pure illogic.

Hey, Joe--hadn't you better look over the rest of the Nebraska constitution? You might find some more parts that strike you as "unconstitutional." Of course, you don't have to explain how anything that's in a constitution can be unconstitutional. Judges never have to explain anything.

Why don't you take a crack at the U.S. Constitution, while you're at it? If the people of Nebraska can get it wrong, probably our country's founders screwed up, too.

Oh--I forgot. The U.S. Constitution has already been deemed "a living constitution" by enlightened liberal law professors. Sort of like "living" rules of poker, under which two pair sometimes beats a full house, if a judge happens to think so at the time. Especially if it's the ACLU's two pair.

It's hardly necessary to say that Judge Bataillon and the ACLU voided an election to keep the clock running for same-sex "marriage." The people of Nebraska amended their constitution to preserve the definition of marriage, reserving it to one man and one woman. Judge Bataillon says they can't.

But this is not only a moral issue. Judge Bataillon and his colleagues are busy setting up a judicial oligarchy in America. Same-sex "marriage" today, something else tomorrow. They won't stop until they've taught the American people that elections are futile: that there's only one opinion that matters--a judge's.

Are you getting the message, people? You can vote on referenda, you can elect legislators and governors, and they can enact or repeal laws until you're all blue in the face--and none of it matters. The only thing that matters is what the judges think. You are not citizens, but subjects. Now shut up and pay your taxes.

The ball's in your court, people. Day by day, case by case, the judges are eroding your republic, stealing your sovereignty, erasing your liberty.

Ironic, isn't it, that while we spend our blood and treasure to bring democracy to the Middle East, we're allowing it to be taken away from us at home.

Lee Duigon

[tahiti]

"Under the law, gays had every right to marry someone of the opposite sex."

This remark reminds me of the counter argument used by anti-constitutionalist whom, when I confront them with contention that TSA search and seizures violate Amendment IV, they say to me that "it is free country, you do not have to use an airline to accomplish your travel plans. You are free to drive your car."

Disingenous, circuitous, and evasive argument.

[planekT]

...TSA search and seizures violate Amendment IV...

Well then, I guess we'll need another Constituional Amendment specifically to protect us from terrorists flying planes into buildings.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[tahiti]

"Well then, I guess we'll need another Constituional Amendment specifically to protect us from terrorists flying planes into buildings."

The good news is that we do. Amendment II.

If you would like for me to explain this comment in greater detail, just ask me and I will.

[poindexter]

"This judge clearly overstepped - by leaps and bounds - his judicial authority, and ought to be impeached for it."

Why bother? Some other judge will just rule the impeachment unconstitutional.

[bray]

Any Republican and especially InSane who votes against busting the filibuster has no right running for President. This is a mafia type tactic that was never meant to be abused against nominees.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[planekT]

I'm listening.

[tahiti]

The following remarks were posted to another Freeper responding to their support of the Real ID Act.

In addition, let's be clear about why we, here in the U.S., were susceptible to a terrorist attack such as the one on Sept 11, 2001.

The main reason is because of the unconstitutional laws enacted by the federal Congress that violate Amendment II.

The federal Congress, by "prohibiting", not "regulating" an enumerated right, private property owners could not ask for the assistance of their customers to help protect their property and fellow customers.

There is no way that Muslim terrorist's would even contemplate hijacking an aircraft if they knew there may be 10, 30, 80, 200 armed citizens on the aircraft, securing it from hijacking.

That is what "free people" do; that is what "private property" oweners do.

My fellow citizens have the blood of 3000 people on their hands, plus the reponsibility of billions of dollars of private property losses because they would not object to Congress' unconstitutional disarming of fellow citizens and have also failed their fellow citizens by not fulfilling their constitutional obligations, as desribed in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

If anything, all those citizens who have support unconstitutional disarmament and the lack of Congressional action to "repel invasions" OWE financial compensation to all of their fellow dead citizens and private property owners.

And now you wish to "TRUST" and or "delegate" your federal government with a new, unenumerated power to take away a right "retained by the people," as promised in Amendment IX, to fight terrorism, after your federal government has already proven with abject failure, that it cannot do it?

EDWARDS v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 17. Reargued Oct. 21, 1941. Decided Nov. 24, 1941.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.

"the right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground."

[Cboldt]

Impeach him.

In your dreams. Mine too!

He's a federal judge. Congress certainly has the POWER of impeachment. I doubt they will use it.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3p7r1t2a6pfdf?tname=krytocracy&curtab=2222_1&hl=law&hl=clerk&sbid=lc02b

Goes back at least as far 1954.

[Cboldt]

Why bother? Some other judge will just rule the impeachment unconstitutional.

One beauty of impeachment by the legislature is that there is NO recourse to the courts. None. The legislature has COMPLETE authority to remove a judge, just because they feel like it, if they want.

[savedbygrace]

Thanks. I should've Googled, rather than only looking in the several dictionaries I have access to.

[FrogMom]

Congress certainly has the POWER of impeachment. I doubt they will use it.

Agree.

Sick of this.

[planekT]

Great post. You know, we have been so dumbed down in this country. I was thinking back to shortly after 911 and how it didn't look like a sure bet that the pilots were even going to get to carry a weapon.

I remember thinking why not? Most of the commercial airline pilots learned their trade in the military, and are several steps above average intelligence.

When concealed carry passed in TX, I decided to take the course and get the permit. The course was taught by an ex cop. By the time I got through with the course, I was convinced that I had (odds wise) more to fear from being hassled (or maybe worse) by a law officer then from a perp, even though I would be legally carrying. Frankly I don't trust cops all that much. Too many of them have a chip on their shoulder.

I thought about it and decided I really didn't need to carry. I rarely go anywhere that I would feel threatened. There are times though when I would like to have a gun with me.

And that should be my right, and it is if I jump through the hoops and cough up the fees. I'd rather just not have to go through all that and pack if I want to, when I want to.

We shouldn't be afraid to be armed, we should be afraid of being unarmed. What if even 50 people on board those planes had been armed even with a taser? I don't fly but hardly ever, but I doubt they'd let one of those onboard either would they.

Your point is well taken. They were sitting ducks, and the bad guys knew it. They would have never even tried it if they knew those people were armed.

So, what would the amendment look like? Whenever you get time. No rush.

[mommadooo3]

Outlaws who wear black robes and carry gavels threaten all of us at once

Sadly, you'd be hard pressed to find 'Joe 6-Pack', who is educated enough to REALISE that. J6P thinks that what the judge SAYS is the way it SHOULD be, because 'the judge' says so.

[PGalt]

BTTT!

[hosepipe]

Justice died in America when Vince Foster was sacrificed to the Clinton legacy.. The lesson was not wasted on Washington D.C. cowards.. been going downhill ever since..

[tahiti]

Thank you for your compliment on my post outlining what "free" people do to protect themselves from terrorists.

"Frankly I don't trust cops all that much. Too many of them have a chip on their shoulder."

I agree with you 100%.

"So, what would the amendment look like?"

I am not sure I understand your question. If you mean what amendment to the constitution to we need to protect airplanes from being hijacked by terrorist, we already have Amendment II.

The right just has to be exerted.