Posted on 01/13/2018 10:41:18 AM PST by Kaslin
We are witnessing a treasonous rebellion by leftist judges who are declaring the last election null and void.
At the core of these traitors' arguments is the belief that the people do not have the right to express their views through the electoral process.
Essentially, these courts are declaring that President Trump doesn't have the same authority as his predecessor and that the powers of the executive branch are constrained by what the judiciary thinks is good policy.
These judges assert that President Trump can't overrule the executive orders of his predecessor with his own executive orders. If that were the case, elections would be meaningless, since one president could effectively prevent the people from rejecting his position by voting for a candidate who disagreed with him.
We see this in the judge's ruling on DACA. Ignoring for a moment the fact that DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by Obama, there is still a huge problem with a court effectively declaring that one president, Obama, can make edicts that other presidents can't change.
This is clearly not a claim by the court that some presidential rulings are infallible, dogmatic, and unchangeable, since we all know that if Bush had produced an executive order that violated the law by limiting legal immigration, the same judge would have ruled that Obama could overrule it.
Instead, what we're seeing is nothing less than a rebellion by judges who reject the idea that elections have consequences and believe they can impose their beliefs on the people. The judges are declaring that Democracy exists in the U.S. only to the extent that viewpoints that judges consider acceptable can result from an election.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Federal judges have been in rebellion for decades upon decades. Good that some are finally catching on.
Congress is responsible for the courts and judges.
Call said judge before the Judiciary committee in the House.
Proceed to impeachment and conviction.
It’s not precedent.
Right Alcee.
5.56mm
We cannot impeach marxist federal judges. The dimocrats in congress will protect them by never voting to convict. The threshold for conviction is simply too high. We can however, eliminate their bench and hence them with a simple majority vote in congress. We can then setup as many new benches as we want and populate them with conservative judges. All by simple majority vote.
“The judges are declaring that Democracy exists in the U.S. only to the extent that viewpoints that judges consider acceptable can result from an election”
That’s been true since 1947. Where have you been?
I think post #23 is a great idea!
“The current problem stems from the fact that there are no performance markers that hold judges accountable for their actions.”
The current problem is due to Congress failing to do its job.
1) Poor vetting of judicial candidates. The Senate frequently approves candidates to the federal bench who do not believe in the Constitution as a contract between the people and government.
2) Failure to discipline judges by using the impeachment and trial process to remove poor judges from office. Congress has failed to hold judges accountable.
3) The Constitution gives Congress the power to establish and define the jurisdiction of courts below the Supreme Courts. If judges are overreaching, Congress should pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of federal judges.
You bet I’m advocating withdrawal. Not to mention leaving, vamoosing, and shaking the dust from our sandals.
The battle we’re in, the one that matters, is a spiritual one. We aren’t going to win a spiritual battle using politics. We’re also facing the stark reality that in a couple of generations, Christianity will no longer be seen in public. We have far bigger fish to fry than politics.
It’s called Blackrobedterrorism (.com)
From the article; “ Gender theory is political fanaticism dispensed as psychobabble by the vast left-wing conspiracy. There are no genders, only two sexes, and it is not possible to change sex.”
I agree with this except for the words, “There are no genders...” There are in fact THREE genders, masculine, feminine and neuter but they apply only to PRONOUNS, not people. This is what used to be taught in schools back when people still believed that words have defined meanings. There can be no such thing as a transgender because you cannot do surgery on a pronoun. The term that was used in the seventies was tranSEXUAL. It first came to my attention that the word gender was being used incorrectly as if it meant the same thing as sex when the following song was recorded by Linda Rondstat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRV84iDlvkE
“We all know what the founding fathers would do with them.”
Yes and we are told that there will soon be a hemp processing plant near me in Lake City. If hemp growing is coming back to South Carolina then let us pray that we will remember how to use good hemp in the ways that the founding fathers did.
“If judges are overreaching, Congress should pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of federal judges.”
I like the sound of that but what would stop the SOBs from overturning that law too?
Was it Leon Trotsky who said,
“Just because you’re not interested in communism doesn’t mean that communism is not interested in you.”
If he did, he was plagiarizing Pericles.
IIRC, Pericles did say “you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you” which IMO means someone is always trying to exert power over others for its own sake and not for any perceived benefit to society as a whole.
The quote from Pericles as I’ve seen it is virtually identical to the one you attribute to Trotsky. Substitute ‘politics’ for ‘communism’. But who can really say? Neither statement was made in English so a fair amount of translator latitude is to be expected.
Did I say that Trotsky said it? I’ll say for certain that Ronald Reagan reminded us that communism is interested in us even if we’re not interested in it.
And nowadays, substitute “Islam” for communism.
You used a rhetorical device to suggest that, yes. Now you are attributing it to Reagan. But if you are uncertain, why are you arguing the point?
In any case, I have used and attributed the Pericles quote many times when people have attempted to stifle my or someone else's political speech (usually a sign that their political opinions as such were not formulated through critical thinking but rather absorbed as propaganda and indoctrination, and that they do not have the depth needed to defend them).
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.