Posted on 06/27/2005 5:52:18 AM PDT by tenn2005
In a AP-Ipsos poll completed in late February it was determined that 76% of the people want the right to display religious symbols and acknowledge God on our public property. If this were the result of an election it would be proclaimed as an undeniable mandate. Is the Supreme Court of the United States of America less subject to the will of the people than the other branches of government?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalmorality.com ...
After last week's ruling - yes. Certainly Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, and that other one I can't remember right now ...
Technically speaking the SCOTUS should not be "beholding" to anyone. It should be strictly guided by the Constitution of these United States.
However it has turned into a little dictatorial regime which is beholding to no one. Sooooooo
Maybe it's time to make the Supremes an Elective office as well.
ALL Judgeships should be elected offices, none should ever be "for life"
"ALL Judgeships should be elected offices, none should ever be "for life""
Nope. Won't work because then the judges will be beholden to their financiers.
Jusges get appointed to one 10 year term by the President in office.
The 10 Commandments are displayed on the Court building. Ergo any other public bldg. wishing to emulate/respect/honor the court is NOT committing a crime!!
And Solon.
And Hammurabi.
Bingo. Mr. Boortz made an interesting observation this morning. He said that he knows the 10C, and keeps a Bible at his desk and can look at them whenever he wants - as can anyone else. Therefore, those who are insistent upon the display of the 10C in government buildings want them there for the 'benefit' of others, rather than for themselves.
Right, like you and your fellow travelers who somehow think that the 1A offers you a right of freedom from religion or that secularism somehow is more equal thatn religion in the public square.
But luckily it was crafted by wiser men with an eye to the future, and not an eye towards acknowledging what Thomas Jefferson would call your "particular superstition".
And unluckily for you TJ didn't write the 1A, Fisher Ames did. And Mr Ames would look askance ata ny suggestion that religion be banned from the public square in favor of radical secularism.
The job of judges is to determine what the law says and means; NOT to decide what the people think it should say and mean. That is why the Constitution provides that they be appointed, and to lifetime terms; rather than standing for election.
So anything without graven images upon it for you to worship is "radical secularism"?
LOL, try again, that was from the small mind of 6 year old liberal. My word.
Radical secularism by definition excludes religion. And if you want to go through life thinking that Thomas Jefferson authored the 1A be my guest, ignorance is indeed bliss. If not, google George Mason, Fisher Ames, James Madison and First Amendment.
hmm 10 years is too long.. I'd prefer 2. Quicker we get them out, the less damage they can do.
"The job of judges is to determine what the law says and means; NOT to decide what the people think it should say and mean. That is why the Constitution provides that they be appointed, and to lifetime terms; rather than standing for election."
Yes, you are correct
However, that is NOT the reality of the situation.
We have little tin horn dictators across this country (that in my opinion should be jailed at the very least), who are WRITING LAW from the bench.
The SCOTUS has now given powers to state and local governments that they have NEVER had, and never SHOULD have.
The Constitution is written in plain english. You don't have to be a spoofed liberal elite to interpret the Constitution.
When it says
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't need some pampered jackass from an Ivy League school to tell me what it means. It means what it says. The RIGHT of the peope to keep AND BEAR arms, shall not be infringed. PERIOD.
Likewise when it says
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."
I can read english and understand THAT as well.
The SCOTUS needs to be done away with in its current form, and those "People" that just destroyed the concept of Private Property in this country, need to be Jailed for Life for violating the very constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
PERIOD
"What you and I can agree on is that the SCOTUS needs to interpret the common sense meaning of the Constitution. In no sense does the phrase "public use" mean "any conceivable public benefit"."
That we can agree on.
But with the current makeup of the brain dead majority, they won't
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.