Posted on 05/14/2005 2:30:30 PM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
Well, a federal judge has done it again--nullified the results of an election. And as usual, he did it for the very best of reasons: the ACLU asked him to.
The victim this time is the people of Nebraska, who voted by an overwhelming margin (70% to 30%) to amend their constitution. The trigger man this time is a federal judge named Joseph "Election? Don't make me laugh! HAHAHA!" Bataillon.
Get this: Bataillon ruled that it was unconstitutional for the people to amend their constitution. Bypassing those shibboleths currently in vogue among his judicial colleagues--Canadian law, European Court rulings, and personal pique--Judge Bataillon went straight for pure illogic.
Hey, Joe--hadn't you better look over the rest of the Nebraska constitution? You might find some more parts that strike you as "unconstitutional." Of course, you don't have to explain how anything that's in a constitution can be unconstitutional. Judges never have to explain anything.
Why don't you take a crack at the U.S. Constitution, while you're at it? If the people of Nebraska can get it wrong, probably our country's founders screwed up, too.
Oh--I forgot. The U.S. Constitution has already been deemed "a living constitution" by enlightened liberal law professors. Sort of like "living" rules of poker, under which two pair sometimes beats a full house, if a judge happens to think so at the time. Especially if it's the ACLU's two pair.
It's hardly necessary to say that Judge Bataillon and the ACLU voided an election to keep the clock running for same-sex "marriage." The people of Nebraska amended their constitution to preserve the definition of marriage, reserving it to one man and one woman. Judge Bataillon says they can't.
But this is not only a moral issue. Judge Bataillon and his colleagues are busy setting up a judicial oligarchy in America. Same-sex "marriage" today, something else tomorrow. They won't stop until they've taught the American people that elections are futile: that there's only one opinion that matters--a judge's.
Are you getting the message, people? You can vote on referenda, you can elect legislators and governors, and they can enact or repeal laws until you're all blue in the face--and none of it matters. The only thing that matters is what the judges think. You are not citizens, but subjects. Now shut up and pay your taxes.
The ball's in your court, people. Day by day, case by case, the judges are eroding your republic, stealing your sovereignty, erasing your liberty.
Ironic, isn't it, that while we spend our blood and treasure to bring democracy to the Middle East, we're allowing it to be taken away from us at home.
Lee Duigon
Impeach him.
That's exactly what needs to be done, and soon.
People governing themselves. Whoever made up this lame brain idea anyway? Commoners are too stupid to know what they want. Just pay two-thirds of your income to various governments and shut up already. /sarcasm
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The judges prose a real threat to our freedom. They have been grabbing more and more power. They not even legalized porn but now they said some types of child porn are legal.
Awww, you must not have been paying attention, this is a no brainer.
It's the judges...silly. Now give me my "A+" please.
I hope this gets to the Supreme court. Let's see if they think a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional !!
Right wing Judaical nominees will be in huge demand after this homo fiasco! The Constitutional option is now even more welcomed!
Judge Bataillon is a 1997 Clinton appointee. Interestingly, he was unanimously confirmed (as in 100 - 0) by the Senate.
I disagree. I think judicial review is a fine principle, but we must remember that impeachment is as well. This judge clearly overstepped - by leaps and bounds - his judicial authority, and ought to be impeached for it.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
In which language? Can't seem to find it in any dictionary. Please source.
I never realized "Here come da judge" was played to the tune of Hail to the Chief.
Oddly n'uff though, judges somehow think this is under our radar. When the constitution provided for the replacement of our government should we find it neccessary, that included the judiciary. Somehow the ruling judicial class thought we voted for our representation like it was ferocious materbating and that was all we could do.
Well, people are going to start looking under those robes. The judiciary is also soft in the underbelly. Pen and paper warriors take refuge!
It is not the job of judges/Justices to write the laws. That job belongs to the state legislatures and the Congress. It is not the job of judges/Justices to amend the constitutions. That power belongs to Congress, the state legislatures and to the people, as specified in the amendment clauses of those constitutions.
Judges who want to legislate should resign from the bench and run for legislative offices. Judges who cannot bring themselves to obey and enforce the laws given to them, should RESIGN.
Oulaws who wear masks and carry guns threaten us only one at a time. Outlaws who wear black robes and carry gavels threaten all of us at once. We need honest judges who will obey and enforce the laws. And that means we have to step all over the Democrats in the Senate like cockroaches in a corner.
Congressman Billybob
It was good times for all. Except Americans.
I'll give an example: The Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional because it gave extra-Constitutional legislative power to the executive. The only Constitutional way to make such a law would be through an Amendment.
But when the courts decide to declare something unconstitutional based on foreign law or their own personal whims - which has happened all too often recently - it is prudent for Congress to use their Constitutional power of impeaching these rogue judges.
I like that! I agree!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The reason that this is happening, that being judicial tyrany outside the USSC, is that the USSC is way too selective in hearing cases and arguments which are vital to projecting it's role. The USSC hides from more cases needing constitutional clarity than it actually hears before it. If the USSC would begin with a couple headbangers that would shake the foundations of the nationwide judicial funpark, it might serve to tug on the leash a bit.
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.