Posted on 08/27/2004 10:09:47 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Since when does a judge have authority to override a LAW approved by legislature and signed by President. Jusges are there to uphold the law NOT MAKE IT.
Just another Bush agenda item for November, along with the Dems filibustering of judicial nominations; and then there is the protection of marriage issue, the big sleeper that the polls are not calibrating. It will turn out the vote (substantially more people voted on this issue than did on any other issue or race on the Missouri ballot)and it will be heavily for the President (remember, the Missouri vote was 71 % for the state constitutional amendment, 29 % against)
That has got to be the most graphic graphic I've seen in some time.
PING...
If this principle were understood, we would never have had Roe v Wade or the striking down of sodomy laws in Texas. The Supreme Court seems to believe we cannot govern ourselves without their interference.
Each branch U.S. of the government was granted the same power, but two out of three could always override the one.
The Executive branch of the government is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land.
It is now time for the Executive branch to ignore the rulings of a single judge, when it is in violation of the other branches of the U.S government.
Is this approach dangerous? Absolutly!
People try to pass this one off as legal cause they try to convince themselves and others that as long as that baby is not fully delivered it can still be called abortion. HOWEVER, if that baby were fully delivered and someone took a tool and punctured it in the base of the skull, it THEN would be called MURDER.
Casey's ruling may actually be good for the pro-life movement in the long run. I don't think any other judge below the Supreme Court level has shined such a strong light on the inhumanity of partial-birth abortion, while indicting the Supreme Court for hog-tying the lower courts in the appeals process...
Since 1803.
A judge should not be in the position to over-rule the congress.
Since each future bill COULD contain language that would prevent judges from overturning it, then it is necessary for each bill to have that language.
I'm so disgusted with the 180 degree change in the WA Sep 14 primary system that I "wrote in" a candidate on all the judicial running for the State Supreme Court to Superior Court. My "write in" votes went to Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Tweetie Bird, Yosemite Sam, Alvin Chipmunk and Garfield Cat. And as a conservative Republican I'm so angry with the State leadership of the Republican Party, Demoncrat Party and Libertarian Party. These people took our 70 year old system to court and the courts threw out our system. Then the State Legislature had to come up with a new one. They did all right (sarc). One that the parties didn't like but the caveat at the legislature level was that if the one the Legislature chose ended up in court then the one the three Parties and demoncRAT governor wanted gets selected anyway. The voters didn't have a chance. I'm so PO'ed at the leadership of 3 Parties that if I could get them removed from the state I would ASAP.
BTTT!!!!!
Yep. It's nothing but murder.
The left will lie that it's for the life of the mother. That's total BS. If she could carry the baby that far without dying, that nullifies their whole argument. Too, how does taking the baby out dead make the mother healthier than delivering the baby alive?
This makes me so unbelievably grieved and sickened. This election is so important.
Real Republicans once stood for LESS government....
Judges are the nails in the Republic's coffin........
imo
"The first and foremost function of our jurors is to protect private citizens from a tyrannical and intrusive government when tyranny is expressed through laws usurping the free expression and practice of the unalienable rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict, and our Founding Fathers planned and expected jurors would exercise this power without question. Juries are the last defense of liberty before we resort to arms, and thus our best defense without loss of life."Want to talk about original intent under the earliest cases:
...At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".More good stuff here.
Marbury v. Madison ?
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.