Courts have too much power
http://www.publicopiniononline.com
Courts have too much power
I am about to criticize judges and the judiciary. This is considered to be out of bounds by libs, unless they do it. (Ted Kennedy smearing Robert Bork; Harry Reid calling Clarence Thomas an embarrassment; and Paul Begala castigating President Bush's nominees as "right-wing rejects.")
The latest example of judicial tyranny comes from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled local and state government can take your property for private development, if the government can make more money on property taxes. Your property no longer belongs to you and you can't do anything about it. Even though the Constitution clearly states property can be taken for public development, local government can kick you out of your home and sell the land to a developer. This defies all logic.
On May 12, a Clinton-appointed federal judge struck down the Nebraska ban on same-sex marriage. The Constitutional amendment passed in 2000 with 70% of the vote, yet a single judge tossed it out. I guess the people, in this judge's mind, were too stupid to know what they were doing.
I'm sure the people of California have felt this way for a long time. On Election Day 1994, Prop 187 passed with 59% limiting welfare payments to illegal aliens. The very next month Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued an injunction, ordering taxpayers to support illegal aliens and they have ever since. So much for the overburdened taxpayers getting a tax cut; they have to support people who are here illegally.
Liberal judges love illegals. In New York, state Supreme Court judge Karen Smith ordered the New York DMV cannot, and shall not, deny licenses to immigrants who cannot prove they are here legally. Next, some judge will rule illegals have a right to vote in our elections. That would be one way the libs can increase their base.
There are so many insane judicial rulings that come down every day. Americans are fed up. People just shake their heads when they hear the Supreme Court ruling that murderous juveniles receiving the death penalty is unconstitutional. ...
Justice Kennedy found that death would be too cruel a punishment for these worthless pieces of human debris. In this decision, the Supremes not only rewrote the 8th Amendment, it overruled itself in its acceptance of the juvenile death penalty just 16 years before.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she has every intention of relying on foreign law. ("We are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems.") Excuse me, you are to rule on the U.S. Constitution and our laws, not theirs! Talk about liberal lunacy on the bench!
Of course, the U.S. Supremes also ruled that terrorists caught on the battlefield now have a right to the federal courts. Have these liberal judges ever heard of the separation of powers or have they ruled that is now unconstitutional? These ruling were 5-4 with the libs on the majority and the clear thinking Constitutional judges (led by Thomas and Scalia) in the minority.
It boils down to the fact the left doesn't trust the ballot box. That is why they want these judges ruling the way they do. They don't trust the American voter to do the right thing. ... They do not believe in representative government. They say they do when they win elections, but they don't. They are using the judges to get their ideas transformed into law via the bench. They rely on the courts and the ever- growing federal bureaucracy to achieve their ends.
Libs always scream, "Count every vote!" Of course, they want those votes counted as long as they win. If not, they must rely on a liberal judge to toss out those votes.
Their chest-thumping about protecting "minority rights" is just another attempt to transform their electoral losses into political wins. They believe in their bones winning elections is their birthright.
And if they don't win, the election was stolen and the people were too stupid to understand the issues. ...
The judiciary's long, insidious advance is finally being challenged. Ending the libs' judicial filibuster in the Senate is one way. Another is the re-discovery of Article III of the Constitution, specifying that Congress will set jurisdiction and budgets of the courts.
Tom Delay, though under fire in the liberal media for saying this, keeps saying this anyway, that federal courts have run amok in large part due to the Congress's failure to confront them.
A showdown is coming. Congress must reassert Constitutional authority over the courts.
Terence Weddle
Fayetteville
Originally published July 22, 2005
Re: Courts have too much power
Quote:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she has every intention of relying on foreign law. ("We are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems.") Excuse me, you are to rule on the U.S. Constitution and our laws, not theirs! Talk about liberal lunacy on the bench!
"rely on foreign law" "we are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems"
SAY WHAT?
Would that be that World Court Law, eh Ruthie Girl?
Oh Lordie......
8O 8O 8O 8O