Posted on 04/11/2005 9:40:56 AM PDT by marylandrepub1
Mark Levin (“Men in Black) was on CSPAN2 booknotes Sunday Morning. A sample(paraphrase):'In order to strike down the Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Mark then asked rhetorically, 'What does this mean???’, he followed with ’ No one knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. It sounds like something from Carl Sagan.' I almost fell out of my chair laughing. It would be funny if was not so tragic that so many people believe the liberals assertion that these justices are Gods(but only the liberal justices!). Mark summed it up,’ one branch of Government is controlling what goes on in the bedroom, but unfortunately it’s the unelected branch, the judges’
Below is a case Mark talks about in chapter 2 of “Men in Black”. No place in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court can overrule the president or congress. The court gave it self that power in 1803 and we go for it, partly because the media tells us we have to. That's why liberals want everyone stuck in public education (and only their judges on the bench). Like in Communist China, they do not want us to know our history.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) excerpt: The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp
Levin Bump!
I didn't know "booknotes" was still on CSPAM?
I thought they canceled it when I didn't see it on Sunday nights any more...
Sorry, It was a Heritage Foundation lecture. He answered questions too(more polite than on his radio show.)
Everybody keeps talking about the mullahs in black, but nobody ever DOES anything about them. I have the book, haven't read it yet.
excellent!
he's always a good interview & lecturer!
have to check the website for a rebroadcast...
Q: "Why do judges wear those long, oversized black robes?"
A: To hide the middle pair of cockroach legs.
Tom DeLay is already writing legislation .. and so are people in the senate.
I've heard from so many people that everytime the RNC or any repub organization calls - the comment is - no money until you do something about these out of control judges and the President's nominees.
I think they're getting the message.
But .. do you think the NYT or the WP are going to report that the repubs are doing anything positive ..?? And .. I think that really benefits us .. because the dems cannot come out publically and whine about what the repubs are doing when the media is not reporting on what the repubs are doing. At least that's the way I see it.
And .. this concerted attack funded by George Soros on Tom DeLay is exactly about this issue. They know Tom is leading the charge on this issue and they are going for broke to stop him. If they can stop him .. they can keep the changes to the judiciary from coming about. If they cannot stop Tom - THEY ARE OUT OF POWER FOR 40-50 YEARS. So the stakes are very high.
That's exactly how I feel. The past few years the media refused to report on the dems blocking of 'Advise and Consent' judicial votes in the senate, or those emails from special interest groups to liberals on the judiciary committee. . But just the past week or I have seen them do stories about Republicans trying to push aside the judiciary based Tom Delay's statements (Tom just do it and stop talking. You sound like Newt and the government shutdown in 1995.) There is no discussion at all of the obvious points in Mark's book. The Senate Republicans are a bunch of scared rabbits, who glow in the complements of the liberal press.
Take that Arlen Spector(Sen, PA)who was saved by Bush in the primary(thanks W). He says he can't vote to change the rules such that Bush nominees get voted on. If he loves the filibuster of judges so much, why didn't he do it to Clinton's nominees?? He and all those spineless cowards voted for Ginsburg and Breyer.
bttt
These two were specifically suggested as easy nominees by none other than Senator Orin Hatch. Someday, but not in my life time, people will figure out that an (R) by the name does not automatically make someone a Patriot.
Please read Mark’s book twice or more. First the SC struck down a state law on contraceptives (1960s), then a few years (1973) later they struck down a law on abortion (and used their prior decision on birth control as a basis). The point is not whether you or I individually like these particular laws. The point is that once these justices starting making decisions with no legal basis, and then took those decisions away from us as a democracy; the door was open for a dictatorship. It’s the lawlessness of the justices that is the problem. Appointing justices that do what is popular is not right either. That makes the constitution meaningless. As Mark says, the founders of the US never expected the SC (and lower courts) to run the country.
With the Terri Shaivo decision the liberals cried states rights (and many Republicans joined in.) But Liberals love when federal judges tell the states what they can and can’t do (birth control, abortion, homosexual activity, and many, many more.) Each time the courts do that the liberals happily declare, 'the court has decided, it's the law'.
The point of our constitution was to guarantee free speech, democracy, freedom of worship, property rights, etc (the Bill of Rights.) The courts have taken away or limited all of these ‘actual constitutional rights’ and substituted new constitutional rights to other things, like abortions.
Why have they got away with it? Because 1) people have no idea of our history or our constitution (this is why libs want us stuck in public schools), 2) as a substitute for #1) people look at individual decisions the courts make and whether or not they agree with them (public schools teach us to feel issues, not to use rational thought). It is only the Gay Marriage issue that has got some attention after a huge power grab by the courts (liberals.)
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.