Showing 10 comments for
Unrestrain the Judiciary

The marxist statists who now treasonously hold court in the Democrat Party must be voted out of office to save the republic. If the marxists win in November, the republic is lost. Obamao and his regime belong in a jail cell, not Washington. The traitors must be defeated this fall. I, being an optimist, think the conservatives will prevail, the disaster of marxist ideology once again exposed as the epic failure it has always been.

I have often perceived "activist judges" as pernicious lackeys of the liberal (communist) agenda. This article changed my mind. If the liberals can have activist judges who legislate from the bench and treat the Constitution as a "living document" (a.k.a. toilet paper), then why cannot conservatives appoint activist judges who "actively" protect the constitution? Who "actively" judge based on the Founding Father's intentions? Who "actively" rule based on the Federalist Papers? Who "actively" recognize state's rights? AD INFINITUM!

I'm tired of hearing about activist judges...I want to hear more about activist citizens.

Speaking of which...I need to decide on my new AR. Colt, Bushmaster or Sig Sauer?

Adherence to the Constitution is decried by Liberals, who term it judicial activism to take the plain, ordinary, common sense of the Constitution and use the original intent of the authors, while they defer to a "living Constitution" which is in reality dead, because it needed to be changed (in their twisted view.) This liberal spiel is the opposite of the truth, however. For liberal judicial activism has has turned this country into a land of God-haters and baby-murderers. It will take true conservatism to undo the leftist damage to our country. The left will undoubtedly slander any attempt to restore the original intent as "conservative judicial activism" although such a term is an oxymoron.

I pray that Clarence Thomas serves on the Supreme Court until he's 99 years old. There can be absolutely no question that Ms. Kagan and Ms. Sotomayor are unfit for duty on the Supreme Cout, and ANY so-called Republican who approved of either one of these women should be voted out of office, immediately. Kagan had never even served as ANY kind of judge, and was demonstrably biased towards Obama's stance on Everything. The fact that she didn''t recuse herself from the Obamacare case is proof. Sotomayor is an openly racist "Latina" who believes that she is better qualified to serve on the bench than ANY Caucasian male. That, my friends, is racism at its' worst. The most important case for NOT reelecting Barry Oblunder is the fact that he will load the Supreme Court with leftist marxists who will continue the destruction of this nation from the bench long after Obama is gone. Kagan and Sotomayer are proof of that fact.

Our Constitution was NEVER meant to be a so-called "living" document. The weaknesses of men and women in power is unversal and will never change. Our Constitution has a built-in method for amending that document, if the need arises. The people who are destroying our nation right now were ALL lying when they gave their sworn oaths to the Constitution, and they knew they were lying. They are all traitors, and should be prosecuted and shot by firing squad in Leavenworth federal prison.

The Courts have swept the important issue of Mr. Obama's eligibility to hold office out the door by claiming that plaintiffs, whether actual candidate, attorneys, or whatever, have no stake in the dispute, i.e. "no standing". This makes having a constitution that supposely protects individual liberty into a hollow shell. How does an environmentalist who loves to walk in the hills have standing to challenge a program affecting the hills he merely enjoys but does not own, and yet a person who depends on constitutional government for his family's protection and potential prosperity has no standing?

The problem is that liberals view the Constitution as a "living" document in the loosest sense of the word. In a very narrow sense they are correct: the Constitution was designed to be amended - but only by a very slow, difficult, and deliberate process to prevent the law from becoming a weather vane. But liberals want the law to be a weather vane - as long as they control the direction the wind is blowing.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are stupid about this. Since they understand the necessity of stability in the law, they slavishly adhere to the judicial principle of "Stare Decisis" ("Let the decision stand"). In other words, once a question is settled, the courts should not capriciously reverse it. Conservatives correctly understand that changing standing law is the purview of the legislature and not the courts. Don't get me wrong: "Stare Decisis" is necessary to maintain stability in the law - a necessity in an ordered society, but when only one side adheres to it it becomes a means of ensuring that the philosophy of that side will eventually dominate the entire legal system.

Why is that? Because it creates a big legal ratchet that only turns one way - to the left. When the left loses, they just try again later until they win, since they view the Constitution as "living" in the "weather vane" sense, but they know that conservatives will hang themselves with "Stare Decisis" once they win their case even once. Once the left wins once, the decision becomes "settled" and conservative judges feel duty-bound to uphold it. Then every time it is applied it further reinforces it as established case law. Those additional cases often nudge the line a little bit further until eventually "settled law" becomes so far removed from the original intent and so ingrained that it becomes impossible to go back to what the Constitution actually says (see "Commerce Clause" or "Right to Keep and Bear Arms").

Sheesh, I'm not even a lawyer and apparently I understand this better than every "conservative" judge in the country.

"if Obama wins he may be able to create a liberal majority; if Romney wins he may be able to secure a conservative majority for a generation."

There is no single statement that more clearly defines why Romney MUST win that that.

RyDaddy,

I agree with the first part of that quote - the second part is suspect. If Romney wins he will nominate people who will - at best - accept the legal "status quo" ("Stare Decisis" is sooooo conservative), which is already enough to do us in as a republic. He will most assuredly NOT nominate anyone who would make judgements based on Original Intent. That would require ruling against the government 99% of the time. Even if he did nominate somebody like that the candidate would never get past the Senate - Republicans and Democrat would set aside their contrived bickering and unite against any such judicial candidate.

Bullets in our heads or strychnine in our oatmeal. Different timing - same result.