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

To: Jim Robinson
Marching on the SCOTUS won't accomplish anything. They have lifetime tenure and couldn't care less what the people think of them.

The Senators on the other hand still have to answer to the people to some degree. They're the ones we really have to lean on. We need to let them know that if Bush's nominees don't get voted they'll get booted out of office just like Tom Daschle was. And I'm talking about both Democrats and fake Rerpublicans like Arlen Specter and his ilk.

24 posted on 03/02/2005 1:34:45 PM PST by jpl (Islam is a religion of peace, as in "Rest in Peace".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jpl

That's right - they whined about not having enough Senators - so we gave them 3 more and they're still whining .. I'm wondering if whining is a disease and they have now caught it.


41 posted on 03/02/2005 1:38:25 PM PST by CyberAnt (Pres. Bush: "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: jpl

""Marching on the SCOTUS won't accomplish anything. They have lifetime tenure and couldn't care less what the people think of them."




In the MA state constitution, Judges can easily be removed for bad behavior, (not that we are having much progress getting it done but we are trying. Also the Governor and his council here, has the authority over the courts in some matters, like marriage, but hasn't used it) I am wondering if the same holds true for the US Constitution? Does anyone know? There is a system of checks and balances, but I don't know how much.


127 posted on 03/02/2005 2:20:07 PM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: jpl; Jim Robinson
Marching on the SCOTUS won't accomplish anything. They have lifetime tenure and couldn't care less what the people think of them.

The Senators on the other hand still have to answer to the people to some degree. They're the ones we really have to lean on. We need to let them know that if Bush's nominees don't get voted they'll get booted out of office just like Tom Daschle was. And I'm talking about both Democrats and fake Rerpublicans like Arlen Specter and his ilk.

Ultimately we must have a Congress which will stand up on its hind legs and take responsibility. Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the court, and Congress can impeach inJustice Kennedy for imposing laws on us that the Congress didn't vote for and the president didn't sign.

Congress can impeach a judge as easy as it can impeach a president for going to court and lying to get a suit against his own person wrongly decided in his favor. Senate may not convict, but perhaps we need to see how many judges are content to boast that they beat a rap with a majority in the House and Senate on record that they should not remain in office.

Finally, at least one branch of the government must stand up the the Democratic Establishment of reporters and the judges and politicians who toady up to journalism and in turn get political cover from journalists. I am one who believes that broadcast journalism is illegitimate because the government created broadcasting (as opposed to Marconi's mere "radio transmission") by allocating broadcasting "rights" to a few and censoring all the rest of us.

The fundamental fact of politics is that journalism is politics. If you assume that, much of politics becomes explicable which is completely confounding if you make the contrary assumption that journalism is public service. The First Amendment is journalism's charter of freedom. Freedom to behave politically. If journalism is free to be political, the only natural thing to expect is that it will be political. If counter to all reason you assume that journalism is public service, you are confronted with 60 Minutes II launching utterly tendentious assault on the Republican Party and George W. Bush last October. And you have no explanation - not for the tendentiousness of CBS and not for the fact that mainstream journalism would not tell the simple declarative truth that the "memos" upon which CBS relied were rather crude forgeries.

Fine. The New York Times or any other newspaper - private enterprises under no obligation to eschew political tendentiousness - are protected under the First Amendment. But CBS and any other broadcaster is given license to broadcast in bands government censorship of we-the-people on the claim that in fact they are performing public service with which your having an equal right to transmit would interfere. The broadcasters behave politically like the rest of journalism, and like the rest of journalism they compound the impudence by claiming to be "objective." And yet if the First Amendment applies to broadcasting by CBS it also applies to broadcasting by you or me. If you really believe that the First Amendment applies to broadcasting, why are you not broadcasting yourself? Under the Constitution you have the same rights as anyone else!


445 posted on 03/06/2005 9:11:17 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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