Next we should starve the courts

Town Hall ^ | April 12, 2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Mudboy Slim]

De nada, dude...see, I can talk about Justice without bringing up Slick Willie...LOL!!

FReegards...MUD

[Liz]

The present SCOTUS has also failed to overturn the horrifically un-Constitutional Roe v. Wade!! We must rid the court of these oligarchical egomaniacs, then salt the earth from which they sprang so that no more Lib'ral dimwits soil our judical system ever again!!

Sounds good to me.

[FBD]

;^)

[Wonder Warthog]

"I still think Jeb should've taken action first as it happened in his backyard. However, since he did nothing, I agree the President should have done what you suggest."

The argument holds for both the state and Federal legislative and executive branches. In both cases, two branches were in agreeement as to the action to be taken, having passed laws to the effect. The judicial branch resisted, and the local cops knuckled to the judge. Jed could have sent in the state police----GW could have sent in Federal marshalls.

[Common Tator]

What SHOULD have been done is for the Federal executive branch to send in a group of Federal Marshalls to enforce the subpoena, and the court decision be damned.

That option was lost when in 1801 the Supreme Court ruled that the man who wrote the constitution did not know what it said. That is when Chief Justice Marshal ruled that James Madison, the constitution's author, did not understand the true meaning of the words he had written. In Marbury VS. Madison, the court ruled that Madison did not understand the true meaning of the constitution Madison had written.

The sad part is neither Madison, a cabinet member, or Thomas Jefferson, the president, ever disputed the courts ruling that Madison did not understand the meaning of the words he himself had written in the Constitution.

If the author of the constitution and Thomas Jefferson as president did not think they had the power to overrule a justice, then who in the world does have the power?

Saying that Bush should have violated a court order when neither the constitution's author, James Madison or the Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson felt they had a right to violate a court order, just shows ignorance of how are system of government has functioned for over 200 years.

Neither Madison nor Jefferson or any other president has felt they had the right to violate court orders. President Bush doesn't either. Any president that tried it would be impeached and convicted.

During the Truman administration the Supreme court ordered Truman to undo something he had done. Truman reversed his decision and apologized to the court.

I guess only you and a few criminals think they can just ignore a judges rulings.

We are a nation of laws and not men. But since Marbury Vs Madison in 1801 the law has been what ever the judges say it is.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Saying that Bush should have violated a court order when neither the constitution's author, James Madison or the Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson felt they had a right to violate a court order, just shows ignorance of how are system of government has functioned for over 200 years."

Sorry, but I understand just fine "how are (sic) system of government has functioned for over 200 years".

It's called "being a slave to precedent". Funny thing is that the courts have no problem ignoring precedent and the plain language of the Constitution itself to find "umbras and penumbras" to justify making any ruling they damned well please.