U.S. Senate: Graveyard for Judicial Reform - (afraid to use authority to rein in judiciary!)

MENS NEWS DAILY.COM ^ | MAY 25, 2005 | LEE DUIGON

[CHARLITE]

All proposed remedies for the disease of judicial tyranny rely on Congress to administer the medicine. As the Senate has once again demonstrated, relying on Congress for anything is just plain hopeless.

Much is made of the "collegiality" of the Senate. You know what they mean by collegiality. It's how the state Democratic chairman of Nebraska gets turned into a federal judge by a 100-0 vote in the U.S. Senate--in time for him to nullify a referendum in which 70% of the voters in the state amended their constitution to defend marriage. But hey, if some judge somewhere says you gotta have gay marriage...

When John Adams wrote the Massachusetts constitution, he gave his state legislature the most potent judge-control weapon of all--the Bill of Address. This says that for any reason at all, or even for no reason, a mere majority in the legislature can remove any Massachusetts judge, anytime. You'd think that'd work--but you'd be wrong. The Bill of Address is a hammer that stays in its toolbox no matter what the judges do. Why the legislature refuses to use it can only be explained by resorting to conspiracy theories.

Congress won't use its tools, either. Congress has the constitutional authority to remove marriage-definition cases forever from the jurisdiction of federal courts. Think that'll fly in the Senate?

Among the reforms suggested by Mark Levin in his best-selling analysis of judicial rioting, Men in Black, are term limits for Supreme Court justices, and legislative override of federal court decisions. Swell ideas--but they will come to nothing in the Senate, where any reform is smothered in the quicksand of collegiality.

We must excuse Senate Democrats from this discussion. They are dedicated to the idea of using the judiciary to dictate to America. They know their ideas can never win an election. How are you going to deconstruct society, silence Christianity, and subordinate the Constitution to international socialism unless you do it through the courts?

The Dems in the Senate are only fighting for what they believe in. It's the Republicans who turn into quaking jelly at the first sign of opposition. They own a 55-45 majority, and they're still scared of their own shadows. But then what do you expect from a majority that contains John McCain and Olympia Snow?

So nothing meaningful gets done, and nothing meaningful will get done. Judges continue to enjoy the exercise of unfettered power--redefining basic human social institutions, injecting foreign law into American jurisprudence, nullifying elections and overturning acts of Congress, encouraging illegal aliens and defending terrorists, and generally making a hash of our country.

We need remedies that don't involve the U.S. Senate.

Any suggestions?

Lee Duigon is a Christian free-lance writer whose work can be seen regularly at http://www.chalcedon.edu.

Comments:leeduigon@verizon.net

[glorgau]

Any suggestions?

Violent civil war? ;-)

[brivette]

It's just a matter of time before all the liberals are eliminated from political consideration.

[YOUGOTIT]

First suggestion: Education for juries. Trial by jury was established in the Constitution to make sure that the government would not railroad people or pass laws that were in disagreement with the Constitution of the power of the people (who according to the Constitution have all the power they have given up some of it to the government).

Second suggestion publish a book for all juries: You must know your rights! Because, once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power to judge both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs Dougherty: "The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to casehardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power". The court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware of the right to do so.

Third Suggestion: Work as hard to educate juries as the ACLU, ABA and others work to destroy the Constitution and the power of the people.

[expatpat]

The Executive Branch must learn to reject/ignore egregious decisions laid down by the Judiciary. The term 'benign neglect' comes to mind.

[lawdude]

The democrats are no longer the cemocrats. In fact there is no longer need for the term radical left. The current state of the democrat party is that of Terrorist. They support all that is evil in this world and the only solution is the elimination of the whole friggin bunch. (Peacefully, of course...ahem).

I predict a civil war in this country with OUR military leading the way. Within 20 years.

[lawdude]

"The democrats are no longer the cemocrats."

cemocrats = democrats. Sorry but I am really concerned with the state of the nation.

[cherry]

their not afraid of the judiciary.......

they love the judiciary just the way it is....

that way they know they can act like real leaders and real conservatives in front of their minions, all the while knowing that the judges can overrule everything and the conservative leaders can wash their hands and schrug their shoulders....."oh well"....

and the leftist just love the judges the way they are too.......no law is fixed, no rule to cemented to change...

and think of the leftist cabal of lawyers......they have a lifetime of lawsuits to file and rules to break and advantages to give....

[ForGod'sSake]

Any suggestions?

Yep. I think Thomas Jefferson had it right a long time ago:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

We seem to be running out of options.

FGS

[jeremiah]

We had one of those, the North won but the US lost. People have been asking when is enough enough for quite some time. The time passed by without a whimper. People are too comfortable. By the time they aren't it is too late.

[CHARLITE]

"Education for juries."

I think this is enormously important point. I've also heard recommendations that there be actual "professional jurors;" - same as any other profession. That way, wouldn't we have more informed panels judging cases, rather than people like that numbskull "Juror # 5" who was (thankfully) dismissed early-on from the Scott Peterson case?

.......and, do you think that the jurors on the O.J. case would have resolved the case any differently, even if they had been made aware of their "rights?" It appeared to me that they comprised a perfect example of "jury nullification." They didn't care what the judge's instructions were......any more than they cared what the facts and the evidence showed.

That verdict was a disgrace to the American jury system. (...so was the Robert Blake verdict, in my opinion.)

Char :)

[Altair333]

I work for a (conservative) federal judge, and I think there's way too much hyperbole from conservatives on this issue.

Every practicing lawyer knows that the federal courts are far more conservative than state courts. Why do you think big corporations were desperate to get class actions into the federal court system. Heck, by the time Bush leaves office over 60% of the judges will be Republican appointees.

The talk I see on this board an on talk radio about our federal judges doesn't match with the conservative judges I see in my daily work.

[epow]

But then what do you expect from a majority that contains John McCain and Olympia Snow?

Not much. And therein lies one part of the problem, we have a GOP majority but we don't have a conservative majority.

The other part is that neither the Repub Senate leadership nor the White House has the will to apply enough pressure on the party's moderate mavericks to bring them into line with the Bush agenda. The iron fist barely concealed in the velvet glove was effective when used by Democrat hardballers like LBJ to bring balking Democrat Senators and Congressmen into line, but both Bush and the current Senate leadership seem either unwilling to use it or don't know how.

[Digger]

The Dems in the Senate are only fighting for what they believe in. It's the Republicans who turn into quaking jelly at the first sign of opposition. They own a 55-45 majority, and they're still scared of their own shadows.

No. They're afraid of what their puppeteers ( the elites) wiil do to them if they cave & allow a true conservative agenda to be implemented.

[epow]

The talk I see on this board an on talk radio about our federal judges doesn't match with the conservative judges I see in my daily work.

You obviously don't work around those federal judges and USSC justices who appear to be intent on remaking our society into a copy of a European style socialist/humanist/libertine society. Instead of basing decisions on the intent of the Constitution's authors and traditional American cultural norms those judges have taken to looking at foreign laws and cultural trends for guidance on cases involving social and moral issues. Even some USSC justices have taken up that practice in several recent cases, most significant of which is the TX sodomy law case.

I imagine that those judges are a fairly small minority for now, but unless Bush can seat enough constitutionalists to reverse the trend of the last couple of decades who knows what will happen after '08?

[backhoe]

IMO, these are the defining issues of our times:

-Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...--

-Useless Eaters vs The Death Cult--

-Thunder on the Border-- (Minuteman Project)--

1- an unaccountable Judiciary.
2- whose life is it, anyway? Yours, or someone else's?
3- whose Country is it?

There are other vital issues, of course- but these three will determine just who we really are as a nation.

[YOUGOTIT]

NO NO on professional juries. The Constitution was made so that the People would have the final say. The Constitution said that the jury must come from the same town, county as the accused, if you read the thoughts of the founders this was so that the jury would know the person whom the government was putting on trial. The jury must take onto its self the decision as to the legality of the law. There are certain laws that I would, if on a jury, never find guilt. There are laws that I consider violate the Constitution and for that reason the verdict is NOT Guilty.

The people must take back the court system. However, the left has made it harder and harder to hear cases by a jury.