Posted on 04/22/2005 9:03:24 AM PDT by Mamie2010
I think I've figured out why Democrats are so faithful to federal judges -- they're confused
the Constitution provides "the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" but the Democrats think it's "till death do us part"
they think the judicial oath of office are like their marriage vows ...
Vanity posts don't belong in the Act/Chap sidebar, and
You shouldn't be making three vanity posts before lunchtime - these could all be put into existing threads.
One problem. Dems don't even respect vows, so that couldn't be it.
Democrats are fatithful to and enamered with the judiciary because it is the only place they can get their agenda and policy through. They can not get it through the ballot box and they can not get it through legislation. ONLY by court order can they achieve their goals.
no its because the courts have names like Superior and Supreme....
the liberals already think they are better than us little people anyway....
"You're so vain...You probably think this thread is in Act/Chap..."
The judges they hate the most are the ones who have Supreme Court potential. If they get on a U.S. Court of Appeals it's hard to say they're not experienced enough to be on Supreme Court. Of course, many of the members of the current USSC came over from State Supreme Courts (I know that's the case for Justices O'Connor [Arizona] and Souter [N.H.]).
The marraige is in the Satanist faith, since practicing Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians are strictly forbidden by the democrat party religion from ever being allowed on the federal judiciary.
Democrats are not "faithful" to all federal judges. They would lynch Scalia and Thomas if they could get away with it. They are faithful to the judges they have appointed and the others that follow the same liberal-judicial-party line - the constitution is puty in the hands of the Supremes.
They are fighting so hard now because they know and understand full well the tyrannical monster they have created in our judicial oligarchy, by the way that oligarchy is used to remake the country by judicial fiat. They are fighting so hard now because more than anything else they fear their own monster under the control of judges that are not theirs.
It will not be enough to get good judges appointed when we can. We must restrain judicial tyrants who remake the constitution at will. It will reuire legislation, electing a Congress and a President with backbone and, possibly a constitutional amendment.
The fight must center on principle, and not on issue-oriented results. The fight must center on how the courts do what they do wrong, and not whose Ox is gored by their decisions. As Justice Scalia has so rightly put it often - the issue is not abortion, or "gay" rights, or capital punishment, pro or con. The issue is how do we as a democratic republic evolve our constitution - by judicial fiat or by constitutional amendment. By judicial fiat, all rights become subject to the whim of the Supreme Court - not just the new ones they make up, but the ones we already have. Courts that are willing to create "rights" by judicial fiat will, in time, just as easily, abrogate the enumerated rights already there.
Again, I ask everyone, to keep up the fight but to keep it up on principles and not on short-term issue-of-the-moment judicial results. There are people who may disagree with some judicial "result" you want or that you want to avoid, but might agree with you on the larger issue of what are the proper functions for our judges, and what are not, and why.
Let the court turn constitutional and see how far the
relationship lasts.
They will be screaming abuse and would do ANYTHING to
over turn it.
Let them whine, it's music to my ears~!
In my opinion, this radical wing has first successfully seized the democrat party apparatus. Now they seek to totally control an oppressive judiciary tyranny with utterly corrupt ("activist") democrat p[arty judges.
They also have imposed an unconstitutional supermajority for judgeships. The radicals will not allow any practicing Roman Catholic or Evangelical Christian to be a federal judge.
Combine that with an efficient election theft apparatus (e.g. Washington State and Wisconsin 2004) and you have a what I can only describe as a coup in progress.
Take note that I said "judiciary", not judges.
I try to be careful about making too many religious references to the issue of the courts, even though that is one area of our national life that has been most offended by many court decisions and even though a number of Bush appointees have some religious perspective in their background or personal life.
I have no doubts that the Dims would be just as opposed to any Bush judicial appointee who had the same type of judicial-decision record as do those appointees they are now holding up - no matter what their "religious" identification. At its base, it is their views on the constitution that set them apart and that lift them up in our eyes and worry the Democrats. I would support an atheist who had the same respect for the constitution and with the same respect for Judicial Review being held to the original intent - unless and until we, the people, act to amend our constitution.
Mark Levin, the great legal mind and author of "Men In Black" that he is, is Jewish and not even "orthodox" as far as I can tell. I have not heard anyone lay out the issues, principles and challenges presented by our judicial oligarchy as well as he as.
Keep our arguments focused on what are the principles that reflect a properly run judiciary, not issue-oriented
results we think we want to see from that judiciary. The entire leftist judicial agenda is focused 180 degrees from that. The principles do not matter to them, just the results. That's how we got to where we are. Repeat their method and we will get a short term period of results we like, but the system will still be endangering our democracy.
We are not getting what we want out of our judiciary because of the judicial-decision making philosophy that ignores, and is willing to destroy, the democratic basis of the constitution and constitutional law. In terms of being a danger to our democracy it would not make any difference if they were ruling "in our favor" when they over-ruled the constitution by judicial fiat. We cannot applaud such acts even if/when we think we like the result. It is always a dimunition of our democratic rights in a democratic republic. It is always a dimunition of the democratic basis of the constitution.
that's the problem, judges don't have principles. I have no problem with judges that follow the law and the constitution, but when judges allow perjury, obstruction of justice, fraud, witness tampering and all to go on during a case like it's a litigation privilege, that judge is to be impeached and indicted.
I'll bet the democrats wish Tom DeLay had gone after a "liberal" democratic appointee instead of a Republican
"Let the court turn constitutional and see how far the
relationship lasts"
you're right about that
"One problem. Dems don't even respect vows, so that couldn't be it"
that was the point ...
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.