When liberals don't like judges (ObamaCare)

wnd ^ | February 10, 2011 1:00 am Eastern | Joseph Farah

[Red Steel]

Have you ever noticed the way liberals love judges who arbitrarily rule in their favor, without regard to the will of the people or the rule of law, but detest judges who use the Constitution as their guide to decisions?

It's really quite interesting – and can best be illustrated by the reaction to the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

Vinson ruled the law unconstitutional and offered a declaratory judgment calling on the executive branch of government to adhere to his decision – in other words, to stop implementing this illegal legislation.

Now, normally, liberals love sweeping judicial rulings with not even the slightest or tenuous connection to actual law as long as they are supportive of the progressive agenda.

Let me remind you of a few:

* The federal judge's decision overruling Proposition 8 in California that simply defined marriage as an institution between one man and one woman;

* Lawrence v. Texas in which the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overturned all laws against sodomy in every state;

* Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overturned all laws against abortion in every state.

These were all acts of wanton judicial tyranny – again, with no support from the Constitution, other laws or even legal precedent.

[traditional1]

How about all the Federal Judges who found that ordinary Citizens have no “STANDING” to question the eligibility of a no-name-no-paper-trail “elected” Official?

[Lancey Howard]

Good column.
BUMP!

[fhayek]

When it comes to the Constitution, liberals see things that aren’t there, and don’t see things that are there.

[Cowgirl]

So what can be done about a corrupt government that won’t even listen to the liberal courts?

[sergeantdave]

Federal judges should never be the final arbitor of what’s constitutional. The Founders clearly gave that power to the House.

The House can:

1) Limit judicial purview

2) Set judicial courts

3) Impeach judges

4) Cut off judicial funds

5) Nullify or tweek judicial decisions through legislation

The power to accept or reject judicial decisions clearly resides in the House of the people.

[musicman]

"So what can be done about a corrupt government that won’t even listen to the liberal courts?"

[adorno]

The power to accept or reject judicial decisions clearly resides in the House of the people.

You would love the "kill switch", because, as written by Joe Lieberman, it would deny the high court any jurisdiction in determining the "constitutionality" of the "kill switch"; if it passed, it would not be reviewable by any court.

At that point, courts and judges could become irrelevant, because that kind of legislative power would guarantee that in the future, more bills "not reviewable" would come into existence.

[tellw]

New York Times and NPR also have terms of art on 5-4 US Supreme Cour decisions. If the liberals win, the case was “closely decided.” If the conservatives win, the court was “bitterly divided.”

[sergeantdave]

I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Lieberman has a “kill switch?” A “kill switch” for what? Why Lieberman?

“more bills “not reviewable” would come into existence.”

Huh????

Come back and give me a hint what you’re talking about.

I’ve had debates with liberals before and can likely decipher what you’re talking about.

Go ahead, lay out your best argument and please use some semblance of logic so Freepers can follow you from point A to point B.

[adorno]

Sounds like you're out of the loop when it comes to current issues and news... It's about the "kill switch" for the internet, where the president would essentially have control of the internet and other means of communications. Here's a link from FR itself: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2663086/posts Here's a quote from the article in the discussion: But last month's rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry Here's the article itself: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.html

[adorno]

And, hey, it’s not about a kill switch “for Lieberman”, it’s about a bill, co-written by Lieberman.

Guess you didn’t read my post correctly, did you?