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

Skip to comments.

[Rush] Most Powerful Man on Earth Powerless Against Rogue Courts and Activist Judges
Rush Is Right ^ | 2/25/04 | Rush

Posted on 02/25/2004 9:41:33 AM PST by tpaine

The president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world we assume. We think. Do you know why we have to do this, according to the president? Do you know why we need a constitutional amendment to see to it that everybody understands and knows what marriage means? Do you know why?

Why? It's not just that. It's not just some people breaking the law.

It's that we're not enforcing the law!

We've already got law. But since nobody's willing to enforce it, we've got to put another law on the books, this time in the Constitution.

The president of the United States said, We've got rogue courts and activist judges who are legislating from the bench. Something is terribly wrong.

Now, you and I all know this is nothing new, and we all know this is terribly wrong. But for the most powerful man in the world to stand up and say, There's nothing we can do about activist judges legislating from the bench and rogue courts imposing their version of law and order on society? There's nothing we can do about it, folks. Nothing we can do.

There's nothing currently in the statutes that allows us to stop this. There's nothing we can do to stop these people from doing what they're doing. Instead, we're going to have to go amend the Constitution so they can't do it in this area. Okay, let's assume that we amend the Constitution and let's say that we get this Defense of Marriage Amendment -- and I'm all for it, don't misunderstand. I just think it's a crying, damned shame that we have to go this far. Pick any other institution that you want. Pick any other tradition in this country that you want and imagine this kind of thing happening to it. I just think it is absolutely outrageous for the most powerful -- and this is not a criticism of the president. Don't misunderstand here. I realize many of you may think I'm being critical. I'm not.

I'm...I'm...I'm... I feel totally powerless today. I feel more powerless than I have ever felt in my life. We've got the president of the United States, who himself is complaining about activist judges and rogue courts. We've got the president of the United States who is claiming that they are more powerful than the Constitution, that they are more powerful than existing statute, that they are more powerful than he is.

(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; blackrobetyrants; civilunion; constitution; gaymirage; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; judicialtyranny; junkie; lovablefuzzball; marriage; oligarchy; roguecourts; rush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
It's pretty obvious that the President is also obligated by his oath. -- Why isn't he enforcing the law against these "activist judges and rogue courts"?

We don't need to change our constitution, - we need to change the political structure thay allows it to be violated.

1 posted on 02/25/2004 9:41:34 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tpaine; billbears; 4ConservativeJustices
There's nothing we can do about activist judges legislating from the bench and rogue courts imposing their version of law and order on society?

Again! The grand illusion is that the Constitution is still in force! Wish I was wrong....=-(

2 posted on 02/25/2004 9:45:24 AM PST by Ff--150 (OutYourBellyLivingWaters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
Me too.. -- Damn shame the men we elect to protect & defend it do neither.

3 posted on 02/25/2004 9:48:17 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It makes me sick to see how disrespected the POTUS is as well. I remember as a kid seeing the press get on their feet whenever the P came into speak. Yesterday when he made his remarks to people in the front stood up and he acknowledged them. That donkey(ass)from NBC the young one with the grey hair just sat there looking boringly into his palm pilot. I would freak-in torch the place. Scott McClellan should enforce it. You don't like, don't come. No problem.

To the subject at hand, I pray we find a cure for the moral laryngitis plaguing our nations so called republican leaders.

4 posted on 02/25/2004 9:48:29 AM PST by WestPoint90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestPoint90
Yep.. Most people have a very sensitive built in sensor for hypocrisy..
After its been set off enough times by political lies, the limit switch is thrown..
Disrespect for all political institutions becomes rampant.
-- As we see..
5 posted on 02/25/2004 9:56:18 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
Amen, Brother.
6 posted on 02/25/2004 10:21:02 AM PST by axxmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
What we need to do is come up with a way to get rid of these people who are single-handedly trying to destroy the culture of this country by taking the moral underpinnings of our law out from underneath the law

We used to have that option here in NC. It was called jail. Unfortunately the PC police have worn the state down so much that it's hardly even prosecuted anymore

7 posted on 02/25/2004 10:22:02 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Is there any mechanism to remove a judge from the bench? They are sworn in.

I've read that in Massachusetts the state Supreme Court "required" the legislators to pass a law legalizing same sex marriage even though such interference from the Judicial branch and Legislative branch is supposedly explicitly prohibited in Massachusetts' state constitution.

Someone approved those same sex marriage forms in San Francisco. There is a rogue judge who is ignoring state law.

Seems to me that these people should be able to be taken off the bench. Would they be permitted to stay there if they were caught taking bribes?

There has to be a mechanism. In California the Attorney General seems to be slow to respond to the anarchist judge who does not believe in the rule of law.

The constitution could use some explicit language prohibiting same sex marriage because if it isn't added soon, in 10 years you will see an amendment including sexual preference along with classifications such as race, creed, sex, and color.

8 posted on 02/25/2004 10:27:21 AM PST by weegee (Election 2004: Re-elect President Bush... Don't feed the trolls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It is a crying damned shame but thems the facts. I will support no one who doesn't support -- with gusto -- the FMA.
9 posted on 02/25/2004 10:28:19 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Disrespect for all political institutions becomes rampant.

The communists and the anarchists have been trying to tear down our political institutions for much of the 20th century. Looks like the socialists have won because law is dead.

10 posted on 02/25/2004 10:29:11 AM PST by weegee (Election 2004: Re-elect President Bush... Don't feed the trolls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I think that there are still options to be explored short of a Constitutional amendment.

For instance, Congress already has the power under Article III Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "

In order to get rid of "activist judges," Congress can eliminate all the current judges seated on current circuit courts, Congress can then realign all the circuit courts (hello 9th Circuit), and then the President can renominate judges to the new circuit courts. Any judge with a history of activism can either not be renominated, or not be confirmed by the Judiciary Committee.

Also, can't Congress pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the courts? Can't Congress say that questions of marriage and the definition of marriage are out of jurisdiction to the courts?

The problem with an amendment to the Constitution is that the Constitution is supposed to be a limiting powers document of the Federal Government, not of the people. All the wording is about saying what the Federal Government is and what it can and can not do. Everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the states and the people. We already tried amending the Constitution to limit the rights of the people -- see the 19th amendment and how well that worked out. The only language limiting the rights of people are in their roles as Constitutional officers, so even that is about limiting the Government.

I would love to see a debate in Congress on realigning the Federal Courts and getting rid of sitting activist judges. That ought to put a scare in people, and maybe reel in runaway courts a bit.

-PJ

11 posted on 02/25/2004 10:32:00 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We need to look at how those activists liberal judges got to where they are: they have been appointed by Dem presidents. THIS is the root-cause of the problem: Dem presidents and liberal Congress, who blocks appointment of conservative judges.

There is a very simple solution:

ELECT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, SO JUDGES, WHO RULE BASED ON THE LAW, NOT LIBERAL ACTIVISM, WILL BE APPOINTED.

Constitutional Amendment is a big thing, it has to be passed, than ratified by the states, etc -- all, because we have a bunch of liberal judges who legislate from the bench. We may pass this Amendment, but what about the next liberal issue the judges take up? We can't keep amending the Constitution about every special issue.

We need to solve the REAL problem, which is the liberal judges on the bench.

That is why it is ESSENTIAL for the conservative agenda, to re-elect President Bush and send him more Republicans to Congress, so conservative judges, who interpret the law, can be nominated, confirmed and appointed.


12 posted on 02/25/2004 10:35:52 AM PST by FairOpinion ("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." --- G. W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Impeachment. -- But in most cases this
isn't even needed. -- The executives involved [Governors & the President] simply announce that these unconstitutional court edicts will not be enforced.
Andy Jackson did it. He stuck to his principles.
13 posted on 02/25/2004 10:36:37 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
See my post 11.

Congress has Constitutional authority to realign the courts. Let's get a debate going in Congress to eliminate the current configuration of the courts (and the activist judges who sit on them) and redesign the courts. Then we can have the President nominate a new slate of judges to sit on the new courts.

All perfectly legal and no Constitutional amendment is required.

-PJ

14 posted on 02/25/2004 10:37:52 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It's going to take the removal of a lot of activist judges (especially in appeals courts) to safeguard the laws of this country.

No man is above the law.

15 posted on 02/25/2004 10:41:58 AM PST by weegee (Election 2004: Re-elect President Bush... Don't feed the trolls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
If society doesn't have the collective will to enforce it's own laws, then no President can wave a magic wand to make people fall in line.

It's not the president, it's not even the system, it is the personal corruption and/or cowardice that infects nearly everybody in the system. I fear we are headed toward a violent conflict in society no matter how these issues are dealt with.
16 posted on 02/25/2004 10:48:36 AM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I agree with amending the constitution but not to address the marriage issue to address the court issues. The place were the judiciary and has been able to run wild is the point in time that the senate started being an elected body. If someone would repeal THAT amendment the juduciary would be corrected.

17 posted on 02/25/2004 10:49:10 AM PST by genxer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I would not put it past a bunch of judges to say that the Amendment is unconstitutional because it conflicts with "core" equal protection clause in the 5th amendment or because it contravenes the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution.

There have already been cases where judges interpret the law as X. legislature and governor pass alaw saying that the specific law is not x but rather Y, and judges refuse to respect the legislative will.

18 posted on 02/25/2004 10:50:34 AM PST by Montfort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ff--150
"Again! The grand illusion is that the Constitution is still in force! Wish I was wrong...."

You might be.

After the ratification of the Constitution and the 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of a sovereign state emanated primarily from Article I, Section 8, Cl 17 (To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever...over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings)and Article IV, Section I (Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.)

Otherwise, the states and the people had exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of their state. (Amendment X)

That all change after the ratification of the Amendment XIV after the War of Northern Agression against the Southern States.

Amendment XIV, ultimately and in all practicality, severely diminished, denied, and disparaged the covenant of Amendment X and granted defacto jurisdiction of the entire U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of sovereign state.

Fast forward to today and the gay marriage question. Rush Limbaugh asks, why is a constitutional amendment needed to prevent gay marriage?

Because, gay marriage and for that matter, all "marriages" are a U.S. Constitution protected, "retained by the people," right. (See Amendment IX)

Amendment IX, now having jurisdiction within a sovereign state, coupled with Article IV and Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution, means there is no way any state or federal law could pass proper constitutional scrutiny. (A citizen has the "retained" right to marry the person of their choice (Amendment IX)and "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Amendment VIX)

Massachussets has properly and legally exerted their 10th amendment right, thus Article IV (full faith and credit clause) is now in force and creating a legal and constitutonal federal issue.

California, on the otherhand, has not legally and constitutionally dealt with this issue properly within their state boundaries and thus Article IV will not bind the other states to the rogue behavior of the San Francisco mayor and local judges.

So it appears that both the states and federal constitutions are actively in play concerning this issue of gay marriage.

19 posted on 02/25/2004 10:50:43 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Mix the republican (majority) party that has absolutely no backbone with liberal judges with absolutely no respect for the constitution and what do you have ?

THE CURRENT SITUATION... outlined in this thread
The answer to the problem is bloody obvious..

20 posted on 02/25/2004 10:51:02 AM PST by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 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