Posted on 03/24/2005 11:24:34 AM PST by Crackingham
Our Judiciary is "morally dead" and as such we should stop feeding and watering them.
Judicial supremacy my behind...
Congress and the Florida legislature both passed laws delegating the final decision/determination to .... THE COURTS!
This is the answer to the left's argument "why have 11 or so judges/courts always ruled with Michael Schiavo?". Professional courtesy. The same reason sharks don't eat lawyers!
Well, they thought wrong.
Not possible.
However anyone wants to play this, the fact remains that a disabled woman is being starved and dehydrated to death on the order of a state court judge.
Once this idiot wrote that Bush v. Gore decided the election I stopped reading. The voters, through the Electoral College, decided it. The courts did nothing but delay it. I guess the NY Times administers an oath to its reporters to propagate this lie everywhere they can.
Water instead the tree of liberty.
F*** the voting booth! What good does it do to elect people if they cannot do anything when they control everything. The people need to take the country back. Can we recover from a sin like this? I am so frustrated by this...I cannot fathom the next direction we are to take as a nation. I am so ashamed.
Allow me to introduce you to the supremacy of the American people. All inferior federal courts serve at the pleasure of Congress, which in turn serves at the pleasure of the American people. If it pleases the American people Congress can eliminate all inferior federal courts, including the federal court that ruled on the Schiavo case.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Ours is neither the power of the purse nor the sword but of moral persuasion.
He who has the power to interpret the laws is in fact the lawmaker.
No, the lesson is that conservatives think it's OK to involve the judiciary for their cause, but not OK when the liberals do it.
And I'm speaking as an embarrassed conservative.
The Terri Schiavo case gave the conservatives the ideal opportunity to stand up and say that this is not a federal issue and we will not use the courts to get our way.
How can conservatives ever again point their finger at liberals who use judicial activism to get their way?
Correct.
Yeah, but that'll never, ever happen. The courts make far too convenient of a scapegoat for Congress to ever eliminate them. Look at the case at hand - Congress passes a do-nothing bill, and then gets to blame the courts when nothing gets done. Talk about having your cake and eating it too - they don't have to take responsibility for doing anything, and they get to escape any blame for doing nothing.
The President proposes,
The Congress disposes,
The Courts superimpose.
What law usurps this womans right to life? When a citizens Constitutional rights are being trampled, what should we do?
No, but the executive is independent, and can act on its own, and is not bound in every action by the opinion of the judiciary. Were that to be true, a judge could order you to commit a crime, then order the executive not to interfere with said crime, and then issue an order not to arrest the judge himself for participating in said crime.
Which is what's happening right now.
The President goes to Congress and says, "I want to invade BadOLandia and depose the Dictator". Congress says Cool, here's the money, we authorize you to proceed.
He does.
Ramsey Clark files suit in the 1st District alleging that the President has gone to war without a Declaration, and the Judge, a Clinton appointee, agrees. She issues an injunction enjoining the President from conducting the war. In fact, she orders the President not to order the troops into any "combat situation" related.
The President ignores Judge Lewinsky, and continues with the war.
Now what? The President has acted independently and within his authority, as he sees it. Judge Monica disagrees. She believes she is the final authority as to whether the war is legal or not. So she asserts control over the President's actions.
Who's right, CrackerMan?
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.