[Pokey78]

Another snip:

Conservatives are distressed and liberals ecstatic about the outcome of recent decisions of this allegedly conservative court. In a few short years, it has enshrined in stone (1) abortion on demand, (2) racial preferences and (3) gay rights -- the liberal trifecta, just about their entire social agenda, save shutting down the Fox News Channel.

[Pokey78]

Kraut ping.

[goldstategop]

After all isn't that exactly why liberals seek to make sure the courts remain in their hands? I thought so.

[narses]

Ping.

[thegreatbeast]

"On a recent edition of "Inside Washington," for example, my friend and fellow panelist Colby King of The Post characterized my opposition to the sodomy decision as "right out of the Southern Manifesto."

It was a bit of a stretch (delivered with a bit of a smile)."

Krauthammer is being entirely too gentlemanly. The communists are only smiling so that they might get up tight on you before delivering the dagger's thrust.
Not too long ago (it had to do with the Iraqi war) I witnessed Krauthammer SAVAGED by everyone on the 'This Week in Washington' panel. Nina Tottenberg couldn't even let Krauthammer speak. I was expecting her to throw an aneurysm.

[Romulus]

Recently we have gone to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places, at least in part to advance democracy and promote our kind of constitutionalism.

I sincerely hope not.

[LiteKeeper]

INTSUM

[dennisw]

The RATS know how crucial the Supreme Court is. That's why they are blocking lower court appointments too. All designed to get GWBush used to the idea that he must appoint judges the RATS approve of. They can be a bit conservative but no solid conservatives allowed per order of the RATS in the Senate.

2004 election can change the numbers in the Senate and that's what we need.

[leprechaun9]

A real brief:

"The matters appropriate for this Court's resolution are only three: Texas's prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a "fundamental right" (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent."

[SevenDaysInMay]

Their self-empowering contrived "living" constitution's doctrines, as if they were self-evident, puts these dictators outside OUR LAW OF OUR LAND, so declared within our ratified Constitution.

Our ratified Constitution is treated as if it were but a poorly worded, partial listing of broad agendas empowering centralized government to reward politically favored groups. This is true only because outlaw activists in and out of blackrobes can get away with it.

No court ruling at odds with what our Constitution actually says can be lawful. How could it be? Why bow to up to nine fellow citizens when they act above The Law? Why vote for their accomplices?

For 200 years to date, we have shrunk meekly acting as if unlawful statutes, regulations, and court and SCOTUS rulings may lawfully order and threaten us with the full force of the police powers of the State. Such officious outlaws, wrapping themselves in their convenient creation of "sovereign immunity", coerce We the People "under penalty of law" and death by full auto assault, sniping, or fire - as they create inferior bench law in direct violation of our ratified Constitution, THE "controlling legal authrority".

The very document which they freely usurp is the same document from which they derive ALL of their LAWFUL authority, created and granted, with stated reservations, only by the consent of We the People. SCOTUS and many elected officials are in clear breech of our precious social contract.

Are We the People the only ones to obey our Law of OUR Land?

Our Constitution proclaims that federal blackrobes have as their term of office, the period of "GOOD BEHAVIOR" which most certainly is NOT as a serial violator our Constitution with their rogue rulings, relying on cleverly invented, politically expedient "compelling State interests".

Our Bill of Rights' 9th and 10th Amendments reserve to We the People and the several states rights and powers not GRANTED (NOT WISHFULLY IMPLIED only for the convenience of elite activists and toadies) to our federal government ("...OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE...). Our 1st assures us that we may talk about what we're going to do about government; our 2nd affirms God-given rights that we can back up such talk.

What makes us think that SCOTUS, Congress, and presidents will honor our Bill of Rights and the 14th's "equal protection" of our rights when they so freely violate our, the RATIFIED Constitution? Because they have the temporary power?

If we are unwilling to dedicate our own lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, why then should we expect honor, much less sacred honor from our professional politicians, in or out of blackrobes?

Because failing to do so is condemning our children's children to living under some fascist rule...

These blackrobe outlaws must be replaced with law abiding men and women willing to obey our Constitution.

[Diddle E. Squat]

bump

[ArneFufkin]

Robert Bork has said that the single greatest handicap Conservatives face when important cases reach the Court is that Conservative judges such as Scalia, Rehnquist and Kennedy are almost always unwilling to throw out bad precedent, no matter how badly ruled, meritless in substance and capricious the precedent might be. Liberal judges have no such hesitation or respect for legacy. So, the good precedents get overturned and the bad precedents are accepted as an accomodation. We continue to lose ground case by case.

[Consort]

When I stated a while back that the Constitution is exactly what a majority (5 people) of the Supreme Court interpret it to be regardless of what Congress or the President or the Founding Fathers thought, many posters couldn't deal with that notion.

[Bullish]

Thanks for the ping Pokey.

[Plutarch]

Charles Krauthammer writes: Whenever one argues for this kind of judicial minimalism, however, the other side immediately unfurls the bloody flag of segregation.

Charles Krauthammer has his sayings wrong. An emotional political appeal, especially in the context of Southern Segregation politics, is not to “unfurl the bloody flag”, but rather to “wave the bloody shirt”. According to the website listed below:

In the years that followed the American Civil War, there was a debate over the fate of the defeated Confederate states. Abraham Lincoln actually favored a relatively easy treatment and readmission into the federal union while the so-called "radical republicans" in congress favored a more punitive treatment with troops occupying the southern states, what came to be called the reconstruction. Opposed to the "radical republicans" were the democrats who had supported compromise even before the war. This battle was fought both in the congressional halls and the elections that filled those halls and it became the habit of reducing each conflict to a single issue: The War. And “The War” was reduced to the slogan "waving the blood shirt". Many believed that the bloody shirt was just a symbol. In fact, while it was symbolic, there was also a real bloody shirt, a nightshirt, but still a shirt.

The (night) shirt in question belonged to a federal agent named A. P. Huggins who served as tax collector (always a popular job) and school superintendent in a town in Mississippi. One night he was dragged from his house and beaten by the local Ku Klux Klan and then ordered out of town. This incident was used to justify the occupation of the southern states by federal troops and ultimately for voting republican rather then democratic. Benjamin Butler (R-MA) waved the actual “bloody (night) shirt” from this episode in congress during a speech requesting that the president be given the right to send troops to southern states to enforce the federal authority. Subsequently other bloody shirts were used to raise the emotions of the voters rather than deal with the issues.

The “Bloody Shirt”