Posted on 03/30/2005 6:44:50 PM PST by watchdog_writer
Maybe if he starts "doing" instead of "talking", we will be able to test your hypothesis.
The buck stops with a civilized people who should never stand for the barbaric starvation of an innocent human being under a false cloak of legalism. Did we not put Judge Greer into office? He sits in judgment because conservatives have failed to mobilize at the polls. I do not advocate revolution and bloodshed, I prefer the peaceful transition of power. VOTE JUDGE GREER OUT OF OFFICE. That is the American way. Do not compare us with the Third Reich, that is over the top.
Corrupt judges and courts have been ordering barbaric atrocities throughout history and they must be made to kneel to a higher moral law by the enraged people themselves. That would be the VOTERS! If only the voters knew what you know. It is our duty to inform them so that they can make good decisions. Do you think that a conservative pro-life judge would have made the same decision as Judge Greer? I think we would have had a much different result.
Why is it that some want to blame the judicial system? Are we not responsible for putting them into office? We have the ultimate power of the vote - use it!
My advice – less hysteria, and more political activism – put conservative pro-life judges in office.
I see what you mean. But does this not, in the end, rely on the Judiciary to police itself? The mechanisms you site are good evidence that the Judiciary has ample opportunity to correct self-error, but if the facts as they are being presented here are correct, it would seem that the primary focus of the judiciary is to dig in intransigently, and say "we ain't gonna, an you cain't make us". It is an arrogance that needs to be seen by the world.
Thanks for the critique. Am I further wrong here?
Employ? did you mean to say elect? Why do we have so many liberal legislators and judges? Answer - misinformed voters. Why are they misinformed? - MSM - NYTimes, Washington Post, Los Angles Times, Boston Globe, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, shall I continue are do you get the point?
Excellent reasoning; excellent writing! THANK YOU!
Sorry, I didn't post what he said. I do not advocate a militia. My solution was to vote conservative judges into office, vote Conservative pro-life legislators into office. Sorry for the confusion.
placemarker
as in "many will say Lord, Lord, but I will say I never knew you".
Maybe we need to re-draft the Constitution. It says that in life and death situations, the decisions are up to the state courts. They did that for a reason way back then. It was so no "King" could say..."off with your head".....as happened, as we know, so many times in England, even to some of their Queens.
However, our forefathers wanted to guard against such tyrany. So then, as per our Constitution, after a case is heard in the local Courts, it goes to appeals Courts, and then the Supreme Court.....
Obviously, along the way, something went drastically wrong. I'm sure it's not what our forefathers would have ever in their wildest dreams expected.
But it is the law of our land, and until it's changed, our elected officials have to abide by it.
In my opinion, we should change things with our votes, and get Conservative judges elected. I plan to work locally to make sure this happens.
Do you?
When one discusses checks and balances, that implies that one branch will assert superiority over another.
Governor pardons, legislature impeaches.
This case is a real problem for the judiciary, if the public comes to review the evidence and disagree with the conclusion (as I have). It's easy (natural) for the media to confuse the facts and the public, but this case is pretty compelling on the surface, to lots of observers. It has staying power in the media, and will be discussed.
What is apt to occur is a serious diminution of respect for the judiciary. THe judiciary holds itself out as being "for justice," and if is popularly viewed as perpetrating a systematic failure (not just at one court, but across several; not just with money, but with a person's life), it will lose power. Power depend on the consent of the judged, too.
Lawyers will dicker over the legal tools to fix the proble (e.g., there was a big rearrangemnt of "insanity" after Hinkley got off on that defense), and will come up with an imperfect solution.
In the legal sense, this one is tough partly because it is life/death in a civil setting; and civil courts are not equipped to deal with stakes that high. Too bad they won't admit it.
Off the top of my head: Augustine, Aquinas, Acts of the Apostles (Peter), Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes), the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Declaration of Independence. Will send more.
"We just just ain't got anyone with balls enough to do it."
Ahhhhhhhhhh now I understand . . . this is just a testosterone-induced 'my appendage is bigger than your appendage' debate -- rationallity and rule of law be damned!
Great rant, well stated. I'm with you on this.
let's choose conservative pro-life legislators like Rick Santorum Voters gave President Bush a clear victory in Tuesday's elections, but they also sent a handful of new pro-life lawmakers to the U.S. Senate. As a result, they helped shore up the votes the president will need to confirm new judges to federal courts -- including the ever-important Supreme Court.
Well, the Nuremberg Tribunal didn't just talk religion and philosophy. They executed people.
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.