Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MtnClimber
In Israel and various European countries, left-wing judges have somehow arrogated to themselves powers to overrule most any decision of the political branches that they don’t like. At Gatestone Institute on July 8, Drieu Godefredi has a roundup. Godefredi calls what is going on alternately “judicial imperialism” and “judicial tyranny.” Excerpt:

From Israel to the United States, via Europe, the judicial coup d'état has become permanent. In the West, it is not the executive that threatens the separation of powers. It is faceless judges lacking democratic legitimacy who legislate on the pretext of judging.

Excellent article.

What we would look like is not rule of law but lawlessness and anarchy as the oligarchy seized power and protected themselves and left the rest of us to live in the hell on earth they created.

3 posted on 07/10/2025 4:48:55 AM PDT by metmom (He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus….)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: metmom; drwoof; MtnClimber; Opinionated Blowhard; albie; KingLudd
Somewhat relatedly, I’ll extend a big THANK YOU TO TED KENNEDY for possibly preventing a 4-5 loss in Heller, the ascent of the Collective Model, and the eviscerstion of the 2nd Amendment.

Oh, and possibly Dobbs/Roe's repeal, too.

Stick with me.

The Lifeguard of Chappaquiddick is largely responsible for the destruction of Robert Bork's SCOTUS candidacy. That slot was occupied by Justice Anthony Kennedy ultimately.

Justice Kennedy was a squish. But he DID side with the majority in Heller. That's big.

Ah, but what if Bork hadn't been Borked. Well...the truth is... Bork MAY have voted against Heller.

In Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork referred to the language of the Second Amendment as “somewhat ambiguous[].” In the same passage, he stated that “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government.”[4] While it is clear that Bork was opposed to gun control on policy grounds, it is not clear that he agreed that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right. In fact, Bork’s skepticism regarding the gun lobby’s advocacy of individual rights under the Second Amendment (shared by former Chief Justice Warren Burger) may have been the reason the National Rifle Association chose to remain neutral during Bork’s 1987 confirmation hearings. Moreover, Bork might have been reluctant to overrule (or distinguish into irrelevance) the arguably contrary precedent in United States v. Miller[5], which is what the majority in Heller did. It appears that Bork construed Miller the same way Justice Stevens’ dissent in Heller did: as ruling that the Second Amendment confers a collective, not an individual, right. The way he put it in Slouching Towards Gomorrah (12 years before Heller) was: “The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm.”

By blocking Bork and paving the way for Kennedy, Uncle Ted very possibly helped save the legality of the Individual Model.

It gets better.

Bork died in 2012 during Obama. That would have guaranteeing a leftist nut-job replacing Bork, tipping the scales to a 5-4 liberal SCOTUS majority until Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg died in 2020. That is a LOT of bad rulings.

It also means no 6-3 margin for Dobbs, Bruen, or EPA. Parenthetically, anyone whining about ACB et al look at actual empirical evidence vs conservative surrender-monkey nonsense.

So Ted, you magnificent liberal, wherever you are, thank you for being a friend of the NRA and patriotic Americans.

13 posted on 07/10/2025 5:59:46 AM PDT by DoodleBob (Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s²)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson