Posted on 07/02/2003 12:20:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Just as the nation was recovering from stunning, back-to-back Supreme Court rulings invalidating the right to equal protection in affirmative-action cases and then striking down state anti-sodomy laws, the political activists in black robes freed hundreds of confessed and convicted child molesters in California.
Prosecutors in the Golden State spent last weekend scrambling to figure out a response to last Thursday's 5-4 decision that California had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post facto – after the fact – laws when the Legislature changed the time limit for bringing criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases to cover older cases.
As a result, hundreds of molesters have been or will be released from jails and prisons across the state. The cases all involve not just allegations of abuse, but strong corroborating evidence, which was required under the 1994 law struck down by the high court.
What gives?
If I didn't know better, I would think this court is trying to prove something. I am beginning to suspect the majority on the court is actively taunting the American people. It seems this out-of-control, renegade court is sticking its thumb in the eye of the people and daring us to act against this unaccountable ruling elite.
Americans need to understand the Supreme Court does not have unlimited authority to strike down laws it doesn't like. Americans need to understand the Supreme Court is exceeding its constitutional authority. Americans need to prepare a response.
What can be done?
Most people believe nothing can be done.
It's not true.
The remarkable U.S. Constitution always provides checks and balances. All serving federal officials are subject to impeachment proceedings – even U.S. Supreme Court justices.
It's time to put some heat on those abusing their power – and let's name names: Stephen G. Breyer authored this latest outrage. It, like the decisions about sodomy and racial preferences, was supported by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens.
These people have to go.
There are many in Congress who insist that any new Supreme Court vacancy be filled by someone who thinks like the majority, someone who will legislate from the bench, someone who doesn't respect the Constitution and its limits on federal power. It's time to challenge the authority of the majority with an impeachment movement.
I know. I know. Such a movement has not a snowball's chance in Miami of being successful in the short term. That's OK. Great movements are never without challenges and great difficulty. But we need to start a brushfire. We need to give the American people something to believe in. We need to restore hope that America can be returned to the rule of law and away from the rule of men.
I remember a movement back in the 1980s in California. No one thought it could succeed. It was an effort to recall the state's chief justice of the Supreme Court, Rose Bird, who overturned every single death-penalty case brought before her. It took lots of hard work, but it did succeed.
Likewise, very few people would have given much credence to the movement to recall California Gov. Gray Davis just a few months ago. Today, it looks like an inevitability.
It's true no U.S. Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached. For that reason, alone, these high priests in black robes have become way too comfortable in their perches. They need to feel some heat. They need to be shown this is still America – a country where the people rule, not the elite.
Are you with me?
Let's get started. Let's find a handful of courageous members of the House of Representatives who will start the ball rolling. Let's begin talking about this idea on radio talk shows. Let's start writing those letters to the editor. Let's mobilize. Let's roll. Let's take America back.
Anyone have some details on this? Is Farah referring to a SCOTUS ruling or a CA SC ruling? Sounds absolutely vile.
Anyone have some details on this? Is Farah referring to a SCOTUS ruling or a CA SC ruling? Sounds absolutely vile.
SCOTUS:
was supported by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Interesting. Joseph Farah uses "in the short term" as a euphemism for "in our lifetime" - what a curious affectation...
Ummm.. It's only true if that doesn't include impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase....
According to the article, it's the US Supremes who did us in, again.
Such an initiative would have a great chance at success, I'd suspect. Conservatives are unamused by these three decisions that strike a big blow to conservative values; lots of Democrats are still unamused by the US Supreme Court's interference in the vote-counting process in Florida. That's a real lot of angry folks altogether.
The court went beyond any reasonable interperation of the ex post facto clause in Stogner v. California.
The purpose of the ex post facto clause was to prevent a legal act from being criminalized after the fact--mainly as a protection against political enemies using the law to go after their opponent after winning an election. Child abuse was illegal when Stogner did it. It is also a malum in se crime--the evil is apparent to all. Stogner didn't, in good will, simply not know what the law was. Extending the time period under which a crime can be prosecuted--as the California legislature did--is not making criminal what was once legal.
It's an interesting issue and a closer call than most people think.
Let's just imagine for a moment that Congress changes the statute of limitations on income tax fraud to 30 years. The IRS comes after you for claiming false deductions in your 1978 tax return. You have, of course, long since thrown away your papers from that year.
You're toast.
Only retroactively, I presume. The lack of a statute of limitations for the terrorist crimes would, I assume, still be valid at least for acts committed after the change in the law (and perhaps also for acts on which the statute of limitations had not yet run at the time of the change in the law.)
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.