A Freeper's Observation;The Trouble With Our Judicial System

5-18-08 | E.G.C.

[E.G.C.]

HOWDY FREEPERS!!!!!!

Today, I'm going to attempt to address an issue that has been on people's minds and that is our judicial system and the problem of what is known as Judicial Acitivism.

This subject is some what related to the recent California Supreme Court Ruling on same sex marriages which is being addressed in other threads but actually what it does is go beyond ths subject with regards to this misguided notion that the rule of law is about giving the minority rights and preferrential treatment over the majority. You know and I know that this isn't what our founding fathers had in mind but yet there are thos who seem to have this misguided mindset that the idea of the judicial system is to save this nation from the rule of the majority.

These recent court rulings are just another set of examples of why men and women in black robes are facing so much animosity and justifiably so. The California Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriages isn't the only example of judges overruling the will of the voters.

In Farmers Branch Texas, a voter approved inititive prohibiting apartments from renting to illegals was struck down by a Clinton appointed judicial activist. This ruling is currently being appealed.

The issue of judicial activism is an issue that is not going away anytime soon. People like Sandra Day O,Connor and Nancy Pelosi and others can wish it away all they want but it's not happening.

And to say that criticism of our nation's judicial system is a threat to our nation's democracy is just plain dumb, stupid and idiotic. There is clearly a justification for this animosity towards our judicial system and it clearly is in the way our judges are choosing to conduct themselves by subsitituting their own personal policy preferences for the Constitution.

Oklahoma was one of 28 states in the nation where voters supported the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is clearly what the bible intended. The voters know better than the goofballs, clows and goonies in black robes what is best and what is right for this country.

And incidentally, the judges that issued this dumb, stupid and idiotc ruling out of California were appointed by a Republican govenor so clearly this idiocy knows no political party.

The secular-progressive left knows that their ideas are losing out at the ballot box. They know that not only are their ideas losing at the ballot box, but also the things that they are against are winning the approval of the voters. That is why they are using our nation's judicial system to impose their will on the people of this nation. That is why there is tremendous justification for all the animosity towards these clowns and goonnies in black robes.

The solution to this problem is quite simple. In some states the judges are voted on a yes or no basis. It's as simple as voting no to these clowns and goonies at the ballot box. It's also as simple as throwing the bums who appoint these clowns and goonies out of office.

[E.G.C.]

The bottom line to all of this is this nonsense of men and women in black robes overturning the will of the voters and substituting personal public preferences for the U.S. Constitution has got to stop and it has got to stop now. Otherwise America will cease to exist.

Regards......

[Sacajaweau]

Marriage in Black's Law dictionary is defined as between one man and one women. The people who wrote the Constitution did not see it as being defined differently. The definition is recognized universally.

Where does this judge thinks he's going with this? Oh, yeh....History books. These judges are egomaniacs.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

This OP-ed has been bookmarked on my profile page.

[yankeedame]

And in this corner, the Devil's Advocate:

"If it may please the Court (of Freeper opinion) the here is either unaware or choose to dismiss the little known, but well documented fact that "judicial activism", as it is termed, has a long, deep rooted history. Stretching back to the very beginning of our Federalist period, and was, in fact, both tactically and overtly espoused by several Founding Father, chief among which was none other than Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson believed that since the judicial branch of the Federal government, specifically the Supreme Court, was in no way represented the "the People", meaning non- elected either by the state or by the people, the judiciary was therefore, and should remain therefore, the handmaiden of the other two branches; specifically, though not exclusively, the legislative.

Not to put too fine an edge on it, the man from Monticello was the well meaning father of American judicial activism. Jefferson, and in turn his judicial progeny, did not believe in the Law. A fix law in the historic English concepts of laws. His, and his philosophical heirs of today, believe was one of rule by the wise and the good. Men and women acting in the interest of the whole, restrained only by their sense of duty and obligation to the greater good. A kind of legal noblesse oblige as it were.

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a food citizen, but not the highest,"wrote Jefferson[1], "....Every good officer [of the judiciary] must be ready to risk himself in going beyond the strict line of the law ...his motives will be his justification..."

Ergo, we can see that judicial activism is neither new to this country nor a sign that this nation has somehow passed from virtue unto corruption.

========

[1] McDonald, Forrest, "The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson", Ch.3, p.49 [University of Kansas Press, 1976]

[E.G.C.]

There was a well known legendary political commentator who wrote that the problem of judicial activism actually was tolerated back to the Earl Warren Supreme Court.

It's been an issues that's received lots of attention for the reason people are concerned and rightfully so about voter approved ballot inititives that are continuing to be shot down by judges.

That's not a good thing for this country though when this happens. Soemthing really needs to be done about that.

BTTT for more replies.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Then may we conclude that writing the Constitution was a waste of time?

[Turret Gunner A20]

Or sill you concede that even the great T. Jefferson could have been wrong about something?

[Turret Gunner A20]

correction :

sill = will

[yankeedame]

Oh, I agree! But, to misquote Shakespeare, the fault lies not in our Constitution but in ourselves that we are in the mess we're in.

My previous post was simply to show that current judicial activism in this country is not some outward sign of some inward rot. It has been with us from the start, and,heaven knows, not just in America.

Both pressed for time, and stumped by the sheer complexity of it, the members of the Constitutional Congress formed a kind of gentlemen's agreement to sketch out the foundation(s) of the judiciary in the broadest terms, and let future generations fill in the blanks.

To wit: 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....

FWIW, I believe today judicial nightmare is the result of a lack of leadership: to some degree on the bench, but most particularly in the Oval Office stretching back all the way to...to...well, to the time of Earl Warren and before. After all, the ground had to be laid in order so that court, and those subsequent ones, could establish roots and spread.

[E.G.C.]

I agree. it is a big problem.

Hopefully, we can get out of this mess. And soon.