Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: presidio9
This is the last "Howrah" for activist judges. Their days are numbered and it will only take a President will the "cajones" to "reinterpret" what judges have the power to do and "reinterpret" what freedom priviledges judges and their families may retain,if any.
7 posted on 11/25/2003 10:18:09 AM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Since only a tiny minority of the Bush appointees are prepared to step outside the prevailing philosophies of the Constitution, and then that few cannot be appointed as "outside the mainstream", I have no idea where your optimism comes from. Our judges are no longer slouching toward a living constitution; they have killed off the old one and dance upon its corpse daily.

Quote of the day (from a U.S. Justice Department brief filed against my clients on 11/3/03):

"The few federal courts to consider the question have found that the Constitution does not afford a fundamental right to acquire, possess, or protect property"

WAKE UP. THINGS ARE WORSE THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE.
68 posted on 11/25/2003 12:43:46 PM PST by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me; LiteKeeper
Judges: Should they be Elected or Appointed? by David Barton

...As part of that plan, the Framers took care to ensure that judges were accountable to the people at all times. Although federal judges were appointed and did not face election, the Founders made certain that federal judges would be easily removable from office through impeachment, a procedure that today is widely misunderstood and rarely used. While the current belief is that a judge may be removed only for the commission of a criminal offense or the violation of a statutory law, [3] it was not this way at the beginning. As Alexander Hamilton explained, "the practice of impeachments was a bridle" [4] — a way to keep judges accountable to the people. And what did the Framers believe were impeachable offenses?

According to Justice Joseph Story, a "Father of American Jurisprudence" [author of "COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES"]:

The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied. . . . are what are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests. [5]

Under the Framers, impeachment occurred whenever a judge attempted to carry a personal agenda through the court; but today impeachment has become what Justice Story warned that it should never be: a power "so weak and torpid as to be capable of lulling offenders into a general security and indifference." [6] The federal judiciary, because it now enjoys a level of insulation from the people that the Framers never intended and to which they today would vehemently object, is unafraid to reshape American culture and policy to mirror its own political whims and personal values...

95 posted on 11/25/2003 2:17:36 PM PST by an amused spectator (How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, once they been to the Internet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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