Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

King George Wears a Black Robe
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 16 May 2008 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 05/16/2008 9:27:56 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
This is not a new subject, for me or for FreeRepublic. However, as long as there are politicians, journalists, and even judges who do not understand what the job of a judge is, we will have to pound away at this subject.

John / Billybob

1 posted on 05/16/2008 9:27:57 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Good one, CB. Keep working for the sake of conservatism and a return to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.


2 posted on 05/16/2008 9:31:44 AM PDT by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative and Rush Limbaugh knows it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

All Hail King Court! Just let the judges rule.


3 posted on 05/16/2008 9:34:16 AM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Ahh, but the good news is that California’s judges, even those on the Supreme Court, do face re-election races, as Rose Bird learned so well. Perhaps another recall drive is in order.


4 posted on 05/16/2008 9:35:03 AM PDT by DryFly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I'm guessing you're already familiar with the works, but Mark Levin's "Men In Black," and Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," provide ample documentation of the systematic abuses of the American judiciary and how it has exceeded it's Constitutional mandate to assume a role in the shaping of the culture.

Highly recommended reading for those that haven't yet picked them up.

5 posted on 05/16/2008 9:37:06 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Excellent post, John. Thanks to the sophist bilge our government schools have peddled to students for several generations, these basic facts sadly need re-stating. Our country has really lost its way.


6 posted on 05/16/2008 9:37:26 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
This is just the natural progression of other court ordered "solutions" to "problems." Take the bussing examples...

We'll written piece, John.

7 posted on 05/16/2008 9:37:51 AM PDT by Fundamentally Fair (Well, he's not Obama. McCain '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DryFly

Can this decision be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?


8 posted on 05/16/2008 9:43:51 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (McCain......Obama......Hillary......in a nation of 300 million people, is this the best we can do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DryFly

Not a recall...impeachment is the remedy for encroaching on what is the purview of the legislature and the people.


9 posted on 05/16/2008 9:50:05 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (DemocRATS....the party of Slavery, Segregation, Secularism, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Yes, I'm familiar with both books, and recommend both of them, highly.

John / Billybob

10 posted on 05/16/2008 9:51:31 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation
Since it was a state court, deciding on state law (apparently), there's no appeal to the US Supreme Court. The only argument I can see, and it's a stretch, is that the California judges violated the US constitutional guarantee that each state should have a “republican form of government.” That means government by elected representatives, rather than unelected dictators.

John / Billybob

11 posted on 05/16/2008 9:54:43 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Suppose a gay couple gets married in California and moves to a state that does not recognize the marriage. When the gay couple attempts to get a benefit reserved for married couples in the new state, would that not set up a “full faith and credit” fight in the new state? And if so, would the case not have to be resolved at the federal court of appeals level?


12 posted on 05/16/2008 10:08:45 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt
Not only has your hypothetical case possible, it has already happened. A lesbian couple who got “married” in Massachusetts are now in court in Nebraska, IIRC, seeking a “divorce” in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage in the first place.

Some state courts have already approached this issue, ruling that since the “marriage” isn't recognized, the domestic laws of that state offer no relief.

John / Billybob

13 posted on 05/16/2008 10:12:53 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
In California, such a petition will go on its ballot this fall, to write the subject into the California Constitution and put it beyond the reach of its Supreme Court.

What do they need to do to succeed there?

Can we help?

14 posted on 05/16/2008 2:22:08 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!
15 posted on 05/17/2008 1:04:04 PM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
Not a recall...impeachment is the remedy for encroaching on what is the purview of the legislature and the people.

Exactly. In a functioning republic it is now up to the legislature to do its job and represent the will of the people which by extension is the law of the land. If they choose to support the rogue judiciary instead then they have abdicated their duty and set themselves against the law and the will of the people respectively.

16 posted on 05/17/2008 1:11:02 PM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!

Then the people will elect them to Congress.....i.e.Alycee Hastings (sp).


17 posted on 05/18/2008 8:05:19 AM PDT by Travelgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Travelgirl

I’m going to have to finish my coffee before checking my comments page in the morning anymore. Darned near ruined a keyboard here.


18 posted on 05/18/2008 9:13:41 AM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
What do they need to do to succeed there?

As I understand, it's too late to get more signatures there, the deadline has passed. Now, they're in the position of validating the signatures already received. If they don't get to the magic number of 10% of active voters, then the measure does not make the ballot. As a practical matter, invalidities occur frequently, therefore you must get many more signatures than what is nominally called for.

Frankly, I don't think it will pass even if it gets on the ballot. There will be a lot of enthusiasm among California liberals for Barry O's campaign, and unless McCain turns around from what I've perceived as squishiness on gay marriage, it's not even going to become a campaign issue on the national level. It's much more likely to affect local races in swing districts or states, most notably Florida.

One thing the case did show is that if a state tries to adopt civil union or domestic partnership as a 'compromise' measure, that state's Supreme Court can use that as 'intent' to create equality, and just give it that extra push towards wiping out a nominal distinction. That would appear to give ammunition to forces in red states that oppose any kind of official recognition of homosexual relationships.

We're moving towards a situation where we have red states with no recognition of anything besides traditional marriage, and blue states that have full hetero and homosexual marriage. At the time that bans on interracial marriage were struck down by the SCOTUS in 1976, only a small handful of states had such bans on their books, and they were often unenforced.

Surely, this issue will come before the Court as well, if that happens when only a minority of states have gay marriage, and the great majority do not have it (or its equivalents) the Court might just find that it can simply be a regional policy only, and not something that needs to be recognized on a national basis. I'm certain there are other exceptions to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, the SCOTUS can create another one here.

19 posted on 05/18/2008 9:37:59 AM PDT by hunter112 (The 'straight talk express' gets the straight finger express from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
I'm certain there are other exceptions to the "full faith and credit" clause...

Interstate recognition of concealed carry permits, for example.

20 posted on 05/18/2008 6:54:33 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson