Posted on 03/25/2005 12:00:35 PM PST by 1stFreedom
Reliance on the appointment of the “right” nominee in the battle over the judiciary is a losing strategy. Quite often the “right” people once appointed for life, become part of the problem.
Abortion is still “legal” thanks in part to Republican appointees. Waiting another few decades on a dice roll of appointments is likely to result in another 50 years of judicial tyranny.
A large part of the problem has to do with the acquiescence of power by the legislative and executive branches of government.
The Schiavo travesty has shown that the conservative mindset has been caught up in the liberal dogma that the judiciary holds the trump cards over the other branches of government.
Nowhere in either the Constitution of the United States or of Florida, does it state that the executive and legislative branches have to obey illicit court orders. That’s a liberal, not a constitutional, doctrine.
To illustrate the problem, in response to a filing, a federal judge could prohibit Congress, via a court order, from voting on a particular measure. In fact, a justice could place a restraining order on Congress preventing them meeting in advance of a vote.
Congress has no obligation to obey such an order, and has the Constitutional authority to vote without delay and without appeal.
Yet according to many conservatives, such action would illegal and place Congress in contempt of court. But that is simply an acquiescence of the authority of the Constitution over the judiciary.
This acquiescence has turned what could have been a pivotal moment in the battle into a stunning defeat which will last for decades.
Reliance on a losing strategy and acquiescence has cost us the battle and cost Terri her life. In fact, it’s caused tens of millions of people their own life via abortion..
Is it any wonder why Gov. Bush has failed to act?
Solution? Term limits...10 for the SCOTUS, 5-8 for the other courts. Yes, we will have to change the constitution, but our founding fathers never had to deal with a biased media and 527s!
Legislative solutions are not the answer.. All you end up with are activist courts who rotate judges on a ten year basis. THINK OUTSIDE THE LIBERAL BOX!!
"This acquiescence has turned what could have been a pivotal moment in the battle into a stunning defeat which will last for decades."
I fully agree. Extraordinary action (beyond what is currently deemed "legal") by either Governor Bush or President Bush might have been the catalyst for bringing back "balance" to the three branches. Ann Coulter and other editorial writers have it right. It is time for a Chief Executive to stand up to judicial tyrants. Too bad it won't be either of these men.
Here's an interesting summary of how we got here. Our Judges were never intended to be the men who made or handed down the laws, their true intent was as simple mediators in the courtrooms.
http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
What is the solution, then? Certainly not replacing Judicial tyranny with Legislative or Executive tyranny. I don't know myself, that's why I'm asking...
THe solution is the refusal to obey, enforce, or submit to illicit rulings. It's very simple. Just tell the courts to use their army to enforce their orders because the legislative and executive branches won't.
I think the initial idea was to get the three "tyrannies" to check each other, and thereby bring the system into balance. Unfortunately, one of them got unchecked and out of balance.
"I think the initial idea was to get the three "tyrannies" to check each other, and thereby bring the system into balance. Unfortunately, one of them got unchecked and out of balance."
There's somebody missing from that statement. We the people are supposed to keep all of them in check.
I agree with some of what you say, but I point out that G.W. hasn't had any S.Ct. nominees yet, so it's kinda hard to draw any conclusions from history. And while Bush, Sr. had S.Ct. nominees, the Dems were in control of Congress at the time. The cat fights that occurred over S.Ct. nominees illustrated the weak hand he had to play. When you've got a weak hand, it colors your choice of nominees.
Even during the Reagan years, the GOP margin in the Senate was small, until 87, and then in 87, the Dems retook the Senate. So the GOP has not had a strong hand in choosing nominees to the Court since Nixon. Nixon, however, was not a Reagan style conservative, nor was Eisenhower.
I would be interested in seeing what Bush can do if a seat or two should open up on the Court. The GOP now has the majority. You can best believe that despite all the handwringing and intrepidation over the "nuclear option," it would only take seconds for the Senate leadership to pull the plug on the Senate rules if it looked like the Dems were going to filibuster Bush's S.Ct. nominees.
Police forces, last I heard, belonged, ultimately, to the Executive branch.
Separation of Powers would suggest Gov. Bush order law-enforcement personnel in the State of Florida not to enforce the anti-watering ruling.
There's a start.
You save your ammo for the battles you can win.
I don't think there's a single solution to the problem.
Part of the solution is to appoint real conservative judges. The appointments you speak of were the result of Republican presidents "compromising" with Democrats--and always losing. So far, at least Bush has refused to fall into that trap of compromising.
Part of the solution is for the other branches of government to stand up for their rights.
But the major problem is with the culture, and especially the elite cultural leadership. Judges can only get away with this kind of behavior with the support of the press, the schools, the universities, and the people. The whole culture of death has to be excised from our country, and it isn't going to be easy, because they have "seized the levers of power," most importantly in our universities and our media and entertainment industries.
That's the most critical problem. But we CAN and MUST push for better judges, too. The Democrats understand how critical the judiciary is, but the Republicans have been out to lunch.
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.