Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

OK dammit, I'll stay here. I'll even turn the other (tight & cute) cheek.

0 Replies

Bringing the case against judges

Are 'activist judges' ruining America? That's the fear of a newly formed coalition of religious conservatives who are urging Congress to push back.

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – 'Activist judges" are out of control and waging a war on faith, religious conservatives are charging. That's why - even as the United States Senate prepares for a battle over the president's judicial nominations - a conservative coalition is working to broaden the fight to the federal judiciary as a whole. Its ultimate goal is to force Congress to rein in the judges. The Terri Schiavo case is but the latest in a litany of court decisions that have sparked conservatives' ire. Many were also outraged by rulings that called the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and that removed the Ten Commandments and Chief Justice Roy Moore from the Alabama high court.
"An atmosphere of atheism is being forced upon us by the courts," says the Rev. Rick Scarborough, a Baptist pastor from Texas who heads the new alliance of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Jews that is leading the charge.

The coalition - called the Judeo- Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration - is unabashedly pressing for radical steps. Congress has the power to undertake these, it says, given its authority to establish federal courts under Article III of the US Constitution.

Proposed steps include withdrawing the courts' jurisdiction over all cases related to the acknowledgment of God or to the protection of marriage. They would extend to impeaching judges that substitute "their own views for the original meaning of the Constitution," or base a decision on foreign law; and to reducing or eliminating funding for the federal courts when judges "overstep their constitutional authority."

"This is the shot over the bow," said Dr. Scarborough last Friday in Washington, as the group - which represents some 40 organizations - held the first of a series of conferences it plans to organize across the country to marshal grass-roots support. "We are trying to restore this country to its constitutional moorings so we are ruled by law and not by judges," he says.

The coalition has backing from members in both houses of Congress, including House majority leader Tom DeLay (R) of Texas. Mr. DeLay addressed Friday's meeting via video, telling the group that the "judiciary has run amok" and that "Congress needs to reassert its authority."

Contiued:
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0413/p15s02-usju.html

Is it just activist judges that the religious groups are opposed to or is it their underlying aim to overturn or at least emasculate the laws regarding the separation of Church and State.

0 Replies

It is the latter. And we should be on high alert.

0 Replies

Due process and liberty--how do we define the concepts?

georgeob1 wrote:

Ultimately Congress is the judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense. While I agree the Congress will appropriately exercise judicious caution in exercising this power, it is entirely appropriate for the offense. Your suggestion that an amendment to the constitution is needed to restore the undeniable intent of its framers is itself quite remarkable.

It is not an impeachable offense for a Supreme Court justice to author the majority opinion of the Court with respect to the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and its application (via the Fourteenth Amendment) to state law.

The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There are two vital components to concept of "due process." There is the substantive component and the procedural component to due process of law.

If we follow georgeob1's view, the Fourteenth Amendment would be rendered meaningless if individual rights have no substance.

Georgeob1 fails to understand that our society is not trapped in the year 1789. Our society has evolved and progressed. Our concepts and values with respect to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness have also evolved and progressed.

In 1789, THE PEOPLE ratified the Constitution to secure the blessings of liberty to those who existed and for all those who would come into existence (the progeny). But, how do "we the people" define the concept of LIBERTY?

According to the "strict construction" mentality, our courts are bound to apply the fundamental law of this nation in accordance with the community standards that existed in 1789. However, in 1789, women were not allowed to practice law or engage in other occupations or professions. The prevailing ideology of the times was that women were ordained by God to fullfill the "benign and nobel" role as wife and mother. Women were considered too delicate and sensitive -- hence, UNFIT -- to occupy any other role in society. Therefore, if the states passed laws that banned women from engaging in occupations outside the home, the "strict constructionists" would argue that the women of TODAY would not be allowed to challenge the laws as violative of their constitutionally-protected right to liberty. And I guess -- IF WE WERE FROZEN IN TIME -- frozen in the year 1789 -- the strict constructionists would be correct. Women would not be allowed invoke any constitutional right to liberty.

However, our socieity is NOT frozen in time. The strict constructionists have to face that reality. The strict constructionists have to understand that the concept of "liberty" is an evolving concept. Similarly, the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" is an evolving concept.

What was acceptable or considered reasonable in 1789 is NOT always going to be considered acceptable or reasonable today. Our courts cannot be hog-tied and blinded from that irrefutable fact.

0 Replies

Debra,
"The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"

Now,when a state court decides,after trials,appeals,and the state supreme court looks at ALL the evidence,no matter how long this takes,would you call that "due process"?

I do.
So,when the USSC overturns that due process by determining that a person cannot be executed because they were only 17 when they committed their crime,AND BRAGGED that their age would allow them to get away with it,would you agree that the USSc went to far?

Or,are you going to say that "due process" was not served?

0 Replies

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Mysteryman:

When you talk about a trial, a finding of guilt, the imposition of a sentence based on state law, and appeals, you are talking about procedural due process.

There are some lines that a state may not cross regardless of the fairness of the procedures used.

The question is not whether a juvenile receives a fair trial and appellate rights.

The question is the whether the state may apply its death penalty statute equally to adults and juveniles (children) when adults and juveniles (children) are not similarly situated.

The SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS question is whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to punish a child for his crime by putting him to death.

If the answer to the SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS question is YES, (it is cruel and unusual punishment to punish a child for his crime by putting him to death), then it makes no difference how many trials or appeals you give the child before you put him to death.

Before we can debate the issue of "due process," you need to understand the difference between substantive due process and procedural due process.

0 Replies

It is quite clear to me that Blatham has forgotten the vicious attacks on Judge Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia from the "irreligious left". Thomas was excoriated for his supposed lack of grounding in the law even though the Dean of his law School, the Honorable and erudite Guido Calabresi equated Thomas' scholastic performance to that of the "smartest woman in the world" Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a classmate's of Judge Thomas.

The posters on this thread are deluded.

Kennedy will not be forced off the bench. He will resign soon because of age. Similarly, Scalia and Thomas, despite the vicious attacks from the "irreligious left" will remain.
I am very much afraid that Squinney and Blatham have forgotten the imprecations hurled against the Supreme Court after the Gore vs. Bush case was adjudicated.
Blatham and Squinney do not understand that the attacks on Kennedy have their rationale in an attempt to get a message to the Senate Obstructionists who are ready to delay President Bush's Nominations.
I think that Blatham and Squinney are unaware that Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington is up for re-election in 2006. Cantwell won a squeaker against Gorton in 2,000( a mere 2,000 vote difference) and she is considered vulnerable. She is on the Judiciary Committee and the noise about judges legislating from the bench is aimed, at least in part, at vulnerable Senators like Cantwell.

I find it amusing that the left does not recognize that the political strategy of the Administration is fine tuned.

In 2006, one third of the Senators will be up for re-election. Eighteen of them are Democrats and four of those Democrats are from states won by George W. Bush in 2004.

The election of more Republican Senators in 2006 will make this esoteric discussion moot.

I wonder if the left wing is aware that Senator Jon Corzine is giving up his Senate Seat to run as governor in 2006?

I have faith in the Supreme Court. I do not agree with some of its decisions but its decisions are, as far as I am concerned, the law of the land. I did not agree with Roe Vs. Wade but I accept it as the law. Some on the left viciously attacked the Court after Gore Vs. Bush, showing that they are not really interested in legality but rather partisan advantage.

0 Replies

Blatham says he will write a 500 word thesis on Dworkin. I would like to read that since it is my opinion that Dworkin is greatly mistaken in many of his positions. Note the analysis of Dworkin buy one of the country's leading judicial scholars- Judge Richard A. Posner:

"Dworkin means that "Roe" and "Casey" follow from any competent interpretation of the due process clause and the Supreme Court's earlier due process decisions. This amounts to saying that thousands of lawyers , many of them expert and distinguished and several of them Justices of the US Supreme Court, who believe that abortion cases do not follow from a competent interpretation of the the due process clause are- incompetent, maybe even deluded."

Is Blatham aware of Dworkin's arrogance????

0 Replies

chic- I think this is where "misunderestimated" might be an appropriate term.

0 Replies

Squinney-I am sure that I don't know what you are talking about. Do you?

0 Replies

Yeah. You're "misunderestimating" the level of understanding of both myself and Blatham on this topic.

BTW, does it strike anyone as odd that persons calling themselves Christians are furious that the U.S. Supreme Court found executing juveniles unconstitutional?

Does anyone find even odder that such individuals describe themselves, straight-faced, as adherents of the "culture of life"?

Are you surprised to learn that people called conservatives would quote Joseph Stalin? Yes, that Joseph Stalin, the former Soviet dictator and mass murderer.

A wake-up call for the Sane Majority

0 Replies

Quote:

Sophistry. The argument that Justice Kennedy offered in declaring the death penalty for crimes committed by minors "cruel and unusual" could be used, without modification, to strike down the death penalty in every state and for the federal Government. If that is not legislating from the bench, then what is?

If this IS leglslating from the bench then every court ruling on the constituiton is legislation. I would suggest you look up the word "legislating" then you might want to show me were this "new law" exists in the Federal code.

Quote:

No constitutional amendment is indicated here. The widespread applicability of the death penalty in the 18th and 19th centuries here makes quite clear the original intent of the framers of the constitution with respect to this issue.

Slavery in the 18th and 19th century make quite clear the framers intent. Just because it existed doesn't mean it was constitutional then or should be now.

Quote:

Moreover the issue here - punishment for criminal offenses- is clearly within the constitutional purview of the several states. Legislatures are clearly more able to speak for the prevailing standards of the community than judges, and the constitutional argument used by Kennedy was both contrived and based on explicit reference to extra-constitutional factors -- a judicial action clearly beyond his authority.

The constitution is clearly the purview of the USSC. The states can't violate that constitution. This ruling doesn't prevent states from punishing crimes. It only restricts the punishment to Constitutionally allowed punishments. I might suggest reading the 14th amendment which says " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Quote:

Ultimately Congress is the judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense. While I agree the Congress will appropriately exercise judicious caution in exercising this power, it is entirely appropriate for the offense.

I had a good laugh at this one. You demand that the constitution be followed to the letter above then veer well off it on this statement. The constitution states - "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. " Congress can make up what is in the Constitution when it decides what it can impeach on? But the courts can't rule on laws even though the constitution specifically gives the courts that power? I think you are arguing 2 sides here. By the way, the Constitution gives the SOLE power of interpreting the constitution to the Courts. Your interpretation doesn't matter compared to the courts which is the only constitutional one.

Quote:

Your suggestion that an amendment to the constitution is needed to restore the undeniable intent of its framers is itself quite remarkable.

It was hardly my suggestion. It can be found in the constitution in Art V and in the Federalist papers.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Yeah. You're "misunderestimating" the level of understanding of both myself and Blatham on this topic.

BTW, does it strike anyone as odd that persons calling themselves Christians are furious that the U.S. Supreme Court found executing juveniles unconstitutional?

Does anyone find even odder that such individuals describe themselves, straight-faced, as adherents of the "culture of life"?

Are you surprised to learn that people called conservatives would quote Joseph Stalin? Yes, that Joseph Stalin, the former Soviet dictator and mass murderer.

A wake-up call for the Sane Majority

I read the article,and I do agree with the authors conclusions.
But,it did bring to mind a philosophical question...

If the govt cannot set up an official religion,then why can the USSC and the govt rule on anything religious in nature?
Thats like telling a child "you cant have any candy,but you get to decide who can have some and how much."

0 Replies

Myteryman wrote:

Quote:

If the govt cannot set up an official religion,then why can the USSC and the govt rule on anything religious in nature?

The answer is there if you are willing to see it.

The govt can't set up an official religion so the ONLY way to prevent that is for the USSC to rule on any laws religious in nature.

0 Replies

I am a Christian and I don't find the idea of executing Juveniles CONSTITUTIONAL. I do find, however, the idea in the decision that juveniles do not as yet have their moral senses fully formed, interesting and loaded with meaning for future decisions.

I do not agree with those who call themselves as part of the "culture of life" and still wish to execute juveniles. I am against capital punishment and also against RoeVs. Wade although I do accept the Supreme Court's finding as the law until and, if and when, it is moderated by future Justices.

I do not quote Stalin unless it is to show that the leader of the Communist Party murdered even more people than the mad dog Adolf Hitler.

Now, I must ask you- Are you willing to allow the people you excoriate to express their opinion?

I note that you have not commented on any part of my posts. You are wise. There is nothing you could do with any of my two previous posts. The only feeble thing you could do is to try to have me accept your slanted posts and try to defend them>

Sorry.

Now, try to comment on what I said, not what you think I might have said.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

I am a Christian and I don't find the idea of executing Juveniles CONSTITUTIONAL. I do find, however, the idea in the decision that juveniles do not as yet have their moral senses fully formed, interesting and loaded with meaning for future decisions.

I can't believe that you are shocked as if this is some NEW ideology that has suddenly slapped you in the face.

FYI: The "idea" that juveniles are immature, irresponsible, and reckless is NOT a new idea.

Our society has long recognized that juveniles lack the maturity of a reasonable adult and therefore require extra protection. Our society does not trust children to make reasoned and informed decisions with respect to important societal policies and issues. Accordingly, they are not allowed to vote.

Our society does not trust children to consume alcohol in a responsible manner. Accordingly, they are not allowed to possess or consume alcohol.

Our society does not trust children to make reasonable and prudent decisions concerning their own best interests, so we mandate them to be under the care, custody, and control of their parents until they are 18 years old.

Our society's ideology concerning children is not a new idea that was suddenly sprung upon us by the Supreme Court and will somehow taint all future decisions. It has been the entire basis for the way we have treated children throughout the centuries -- as reflected meaningfully in all of our past decisions and laws with respect to children.

It is cruel and unusual punishment, hence unconstitutional, to put children to death. That doesn't mean that children escape severe punishment for the crime of murder. It is sufficient punishment to sentence a 17-year-old to life imprisonment with or without the possibility of parole.

0 Replies

Debra,
You said..."Our society does not trust children to make reasonable and prudent decisions concerning their own best interests, so we mandate them to be under the care, custody, and control of their parents until they are 18 years old.

Tell me,how does that reconcile with this...
http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news597/minor-abortion.html

There have been many court rulings that state that minors can have an abortion without parental consent or notification.
That seems a direct contradiction to what you wrote.
Now,if they are able to make reasonable and prudent decisions concerning their own best interests when it comes to abortion,then why arent they able to make the same decisions when it comes to committing a capitol crime and facing the consequences?

It cant be both ways.

0 Replies

Mys,

It's because there are abusive fathers out there who KNOCK UP their poor daughters. Do you think they should have to go to the guy to get his permission for an abortion?

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Mys,

It's because there are abusive fathers out there who KNOCK UP their poor daughters. Do you think they should have to go to the guy to get his permission for an abortion?

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

Thats a rather poor defense.
If this is the case,then the abortion clinics are REQUIRED BY LAW to report to the police.
Yet,we hear VERY LITTLE about this.Why is that?

Also,even if what you say is true,that is a very small percentage of girls getting pregnant.
Nost of them are pregnant because they couldnt or wouldnt say no.
If they are adult enough to make decisions regarding abortion,then they are adult enough to make other decisions.

Why are you defending a contradiction in the law?

0 Replies

Quote:

Thats a rather poor defense.
If this is the case,then the abortion clinics are REQUIRED BY LAW to report to the police.
Yet,we hear VERY LITTLE about this.Why is that?

Hmm, because perhaps some people have a little common decency and don't make a huge news story about some poor girl getting raped by her father. That is why 'We' hear very little about this, but it does happen. It doesn't matter how small the percentage is.

There is no contradiction in the law whatsoever in this case, only in your mind.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know