Posted on 07/31/2003 8:54:10 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Typically, conservatives are all in favor of limited government, but I guess in this case, the will to rule over others is the greater consideration.
And I for one, would rather not have a Supreme Court that can be cowed into making unjust decisions by a democratic mob. I want a judiciary that has the lattitude to make decisions that are just, even if they're unpopular.
Define "flaunt their Oath of Office." We appoint judges to interpret laws and the Constitution. By expanding the impeachment power of Congress, you make the legislature the final judge of what is and isn't Consitutional. That goes against the whole idea of separation of powers, which is the hallmark of the American democratic system. Once you give another branch of government the power to kick judges out for making "unconstitutional" rulings, the judiciary becomes obsolete.
The Founding Fathers put mechanisms in place to prevent momentary popular passions from trampling constitutional rights. Now, some of the posters here are basically saying that the Constitution means what Congress says it does. They're rather missing the point of how our system is supposed to work.
Interesting. That's precisely what I did (define flaunt their Oath) in the very paragrapgh you copied-and-pasted into your inobservant reply #25.
Here, I'll re-post it from there for you. This time, read (slowly if need be), think, then post. N'Kay? :-)
...for Judges to be removed who flaunt their Oath of Office by ignoring or trying to re-write The Constitution.
You must feel very silly...
Yes, I agree. That's why it is important for congress to send a message to the Mass. supreme court before it is cowed into making an unjust decision by a democratic mob.
Mondernman replies to tdadams: "The Founding Fathers put mechanisms in place to prevent momentary popular passions from trampling constitutional rights. Now, some of the posters here are basically saying that the Constitution means what Congress says it does. They're rather missing the point of how our system is supposed to work.
The way our system is supposed to work is to go through the amendment process rather than let the courts RE-DEFINE the words used in law and the constitution which have already been defined and enjoyed use for centuries.
Political and legal status of Freed slaves and women were recognized through the amendment process. Why should the court short-circuit the process by RE-DEFINING the word, 'marriage -- a word that has already been defined and in legal and social use for centuries to include a class of people that do not meet the legal definition of the word?
It would not only be inconsistent with the established practice, it would be legislating from the bench. If we are concerned with the rule of law and the constitution , and especially the promotion of conservatism, we would be remiss if we did not push congress to send a message to the courts and prevent the judges from RE-DEFINING words already in use before they do their dirty deed. It is task enough for the court to define the law and the constituion, not change the meaning of words they are supposed to use to perform that task.
Who needs laws or a constitution if five appointed udges are allowed to subvert the intent of the Founding Fathers by changing the legal meaning of words?
And a final thought: If I was a descendant of a freed slaves, or a woman wanting equal rights, I would take it to heart if the court, and the senate both considered the homosexual community as being more human and more deserving of higher status than they were accorded.
In case you're forgetting something, they haven't!
Change: ". . . freed slaves . . " to ' . . . freed slave . . ..' and " . .that they were accorded." to ' . . . than that which they were accorded.'
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.