Order in the Court (Ingraham)

www.LauraIngraham.com ^ | February 26, 2004 | Laura Ingraham

[Choose Ye This Day]

Order in the Court!

Gasps are coming from the Left-and even from the Libertarian Right-about the President's decision (finally!) to confront our increasingly activist judiciary. This is an attempt to create a "wedge issue" echoed the lemmings in the media. This is another Bush attempt to "divide" the country!

Yet any gasps should be directed at the bench, where for decades Americans have seen their views and their traditions systematically trashed. Whether it's the issue of marriage, prayer at football games, or God in the Pledge of Allegiance, we've seen courts from coast to coast venture far beyond proper role in a naked attempt to create a new, forward-thinking social, political, and cultural framework.

From time to time in our history, Presidents have had to challenge the Supreme Court. Lincoln openly disagreed with the Court's Dred Scott Decision. FDR threatened to pack the Court because of its New Deal decisions. These presidents played a vital role in preventing the Court from thwarting the legitimate wishes of the American people.

For over 30 years, conservatives have been complaining about the courts, but the truth is, we've never really done that much about it. Republican presidents have put people like David Souter and John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and things have just gotten worse. President Reagan heralded the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor-a sharp, delightful person-yet she has consistently pushed the Court into dangerous territory. And let's not forget Anthony "You Have a Constitutional Right to Sodomy" Kennedy, another Reagan appointee.

President Bush and his supporters have to make clear that the fight over the gay marriage amendment is not a fight about gays, not a fight about marriage, but a fight about the power of the Courts. Conservatives should never take the process of amending the Constitution lightly, and President Bush should make it abundantly clear that this is a last resort given what the abuse by courts on the federal and state level.

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, among others, have insisted that the gay marriage issue be "left to the states." If reporters/anchors bothered to ask a follow-up question, they would point out that Justice Souter and his ilk will never be content to leave it to the states. (See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Rather they are intent on imposing Massachusetts' law on every state in America.

The salient point is that in a democracy, a few isolated individuals should not be allowed to make such sweeping changes in our law. This is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people, not a government of highly-placed lawyers who seek to impose their vision (much of which they get from European courts) on an unwilling populace.

Restraining the judiciary must be the top priority for conservative from now until judges get back to the business of judging. Some conservatives find themselves beguiled by the ritual, formality and history of the judiciary--the robes, the high ceilings. Now they must push beyond the nostalgia and finally recognize that too many courts have become agents for the most radical forces in our society. By now everyone should understand why Sen. Chuck Schumer & Co. have been fighting so viciously to block Bush's judicial nominees-the Courts are the one place where the Left has been consistently winning.

Can you feel the pendulum swing? I can.

[DMZFrank]

Ingraham says that this is a last resort given the abuse by the courts. Why are we going to the last resort and we havn't taken the first resorts yet? Those first resorts are impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.

The marriage amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[King Black Robe]

Good girl!!!

[Redcoat LI]

I'll bet she smells nice,too.

[tpaine]

I'm listening to George Will on the Laura Ingraham Show right now, and he just pointed out that the most reckless SCOTUS justices of the last 40 years were appointed by Republicans: Warren, Brennan, Stevens, and Souter.
Scary.
10 -Sabertooth-


______________________________________


Made even scarier by Fed judges like the one who just ruled that DC's citizens had no RKBA's..

One wonders how many like him the pubbies appointed.

Republicans are appointing authoritarian socialists to the bench.. Democrats are appointing communitarian socialists..

Why is it surprising that socialism is winning?

[Alberta's Child]

In 100 years (less, actually) the Roe v Wade decision will be seamlessly linked with the Dred Scott decision as examples of terrible court decisions that led to long periods of suffering in the US before a moral status quo was re-asserted.

If you are correct about this, then you can take this to the bank, too:

In 100 years, the Roe v. Wade decision will be portrayed in U.S. history books as part of a concerted effort by conservative, white, male Republicans to exploit women and control minority populations in this country.

The fact that unfettered access to abortion is now an official plank of the Democratic Party will never be revealed to future generations, as will the role of people like Jesse Jackson, the Black Congressional Caucus, the NAACP, etc. in supporting Roe v. Wade.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Great points. Well said. Let's start a list of impeachment candidates.

[Choose Ye This Day]

She's much shorter than I thought she would be.

[marktwain]

My only difference with her is in her use of the phrase "forward-thinking".

You are absolutely correct. Perhaps collectivist-thinking, statist-thinking, or socialistic thinking would be better.

[tpaine]

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
-Frank-


______________________________________


Well said..
It makes too much sense to have much of an impact here at FR, but it bears repeating, often..

[Choose Ye This Day]

I vote YES.

[Imagine]

Nice Commentary - right the point.

[reademnweep]

Ingraham is the most prepared, clever, and evenhanded talk show host out there. I would love to see her replace the rants of Hannity on FNC.

[Sloth]

President Bush should make it abundantly clear that this is a last resort given what the abuse by courts on the federal and state level.

It's not a last resort. Attempts at impeachment should come first.

[hattend]

Can you feel the pendulum swing? I can.

I'll feel the pendulum swing when a Republican controlled Senate can end a silly parliamentary trick like a filibuster.

[axel f]

LOL! I didn't get to smell her. sigh

[axel f]

I like shorter, feisty women. But you're right, she is shorter than I thought she'd be too.

[Morgan in Denver]

I didn't question Ingraham's abilities, although the few times I've tried to listen to her program she seems to pander to the left without taking them to task for their views. I heard her interview Robert Reich and all she could do is giggle and keep saying how much she liked him.

My only point was that she whines like a stuck pig caught in a mud hole, and that it's bad enough to turn listeners off. Of course, I could be wrong too, and if I am she will have a long career. The ratings numbers will tell the tale. Speaking of which, I also heard her berate a caller who commented about her whining. Ingraham came unglued and started calling the caller names. Really unprofessional, IMHO.

[Redcoat LI]

I vote YES.

Motion carried,on to new business,the chair recognises the fat drunk from Massachusetts.

[douglas1]

IN some cases the feds pursue charges and verdicts, but only if it is a liberal cause .

[EQAndyBuzz]

So am I laying in bed the other night having this dream about me, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley in a hot tub, drinking margaritas and taking turns inhaling helium and reading from Al Frankens book in Al Frankens voice.

Laura gets up, asks who wants another margarita and as I gaze at her figure emerging from the bubbles, I am awakened by, "honey you will be late for work."