Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

What Government do We Have?

June 26, 2015

Yesterday’s decision that laws don’t mean what they say, and today’s decision that the Founding Fathers stealthily embedded a redefinition of marriage makes me wonder: What type of government do we have?

If someone visiting from a foreign country were to visit us and take a look around, what would they say?

We’d like to think we are a democracy. That’s not right. People don’t write laws, except for the occasional initiative. Yet we saw when the people voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman, that was denied. We are not a democracy. There is a power superior to the people.

Maybe we’re a representative democracy. People elect their representatives, and they write the laws. And yet, we see that the laws they have written mean something else.

Surely, we’re a dictatorship, then. The president sits at the head of the government and chooses which laws to keep and which to break. Except in a few cases, the president himself has had his decisions overturned.

The ultimate government in our land is not the people, not the legislatures, not the presidents and governors.

It is the Supreme Court.

We are now an oligarchy. Those 9 justices (or rather, 5) make all the decisions about what is and isn’t law, what is and isn’t a right, and have the final say on every issue.

Are you happy? Is this what you wanted to see? Because that’s what we have.

Of course, it’s been this way for a while. Hopefully now most of America realizes the truth now.What to be done? The constitution has the answer. But who has faith in that old piece of paper anyway?The truth is the power lies in the hands of the people. When the people are ready to change things again, then it will change. Until that time, we are a sleeping giant. Please have sweet dreams while the Supreme Court ignores every fundamental right and natural law on their quest for vanity.

Advertisements

Political Fight Night!

March 11, 2010

In this corner, President of the United States Barack Obama.

In this corner, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen the legislative or executive branch openly fight with the judiciary. See, the way our people have come to understand the government, the judiciary has the final say on what is and is not constitutional. Of course, this wasn’t ever the intention of the Founding Fathers, who wanted three co-equal but separate branches of government.

If President Obama wants to set an adversarial tone with the judicial, I would encourage him to do so. There needs to be a national discussion on how far the Supreme Court is allowed to go and who really decides what is and is not constitutional.

The way I see it, every branch of government, the people, and the states individually, should each have their own interpretation of the constitution. Each should exercise whatever power they believe they have to the full extent. That means:

  • The president should only enforce laws he believes are constitutional.
  • The legislature should only pass laws they believe are constitutional.
  • The judiciary should only judge individual cases according to their interpretation of the constitution.
  • The people should elect representatives according to what they believe is constitutional, and openly challenge the government’s interpretation of the constitution and go as far as exercising jury nullification to nullify unconstitutional laws.
  • The states, as well, should write their own laws and judge their own cases and raise their own armies according to their interpretation of the constitution.

So I say, Bravo, President Obama! Go ahead and challenge the judiciary! Please, we need the executive branch to stand up and openly reject court decisions from time to time.

Of course, in this particular case, President Obama and the democrats are dead wrong. When the first amendment was written, it was written in such a way that laws that even hinted at obstructing the freedom of speech, or of the press were outright forbidden. Congress cannot legislate what we say, and how we distribute that message! If a foreign national wants to spend a billion dollars to run a political ad the day before our presidential election, it is his God-given RIGHT to do so! Let people speak and be heard! Let them use whatever resources they have available to influence the people in whatever ways they deem necessary!

I’m glad the Supreme Court recognized my right to gather a few friends together and speak, LOUDLY, about the political issues and candidates of the day.

I’m also glad that the president is not acting deferential to the judiciary and the legislature. Let them fight, fight, fight! The more they fight, the more liberties we will have!

I’m extremely glad that Obama now realizes how dangerous our government is to bad ideas. No, you cannot use bargaining or bribes or threats of violence to move ahead in our political system. You have to build consensus and campaign endlessly just to move the smallest issue ahead.

Litmus Test for Liberalism

March 6, 2010

By: Frosty E Hardison

I have developed a short list of principles that you MUST support if you are a liberal. If there is just one you do not agree with – then you are not as liberal as you might think. In fact you might want to reconsider that donation to the DNC and ACLU- if you don’t agree with them all.

1. You have to be against capital punishment for repeat offenders, but support the murder of an innocent child through abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that it’s alright for your kids to have sex in your home or wherever they choose to – without your permission and if they get pregnant at 12, it’s ok for them to seek an abortion without your knowledge or consent.
3. You have to believe that the state knows more about parenting than you do, can do a better job at it and therefore can take your kids away at the whim of your neighbor and put them into foster care where they are 80% more likely to be beaten, sexually abused and murdered.
4. You have to believe that every pagan thing is about freedom of expression and that everything Christian is just another religious zealot believing in outdated myths and legends.
5. You have to believe that funding the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas, so they can buy weapons “to defend themselves”, is the only way to peace in the middle east.
6. You have to be against the building of the third Temple in Jerusalem because it will give credibility to Jewish claims to the land.
7. You have to believe that you are smarter than the natural law of thermodynamics and entropy; that you are the descendant of an ape and that at some point your species came from some scum sucking primordial ooze.
8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
9. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of the Chinese, Iranians and North Korean communists.
10. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
11. You have to believe that global temperatures are more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs than by scientifically documented cyclical changes in the sun and earth’s climate.
12. You have to believe that gender roles are offensive, discriminatory and artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
13. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
14. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
15. You have to believe that sportsmen and hunters don’t care about nature or protecting the pristine environment they enjoy but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
16. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something right.
17. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion of the Christ for financial gain only.
18. You have to believe that the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
19. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
20. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.
21. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas, government forms for services printed in every language and special treatment for illegal immigrants and minorities are not.
22. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is a normal working class woman and is a very nice person.
23. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
24. You have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
25. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, public nudity and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
26. You have to believe that illegal funding by the Chinese, and other foreign governments, of the Democratic Party is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
27. You have to believe that it’s okay to give federal workers the day off on Christmas Day, but it’s not okay to have a Christmas tree displayed in their office or even their personal cubical or for them to say “Merry Christmas.”
28. You have to believe that a mandatory court ordered anger management class, specializing in the parenting of teenagers, can be taught by a teacher that has gone to school for years but has never had a child of their own.
29. You have to believe that the government is your friend, that the Federal Reserve Bank is a part of the Federal Government and that the dollar will always be the world’s most stable reserve currency even though the U.S. is now the largest debtor nation in the world, we owe over 74 trillion dollars to other countries and our currency is no longer based on tangible assets such as gold, silver or copper.
30. You have to believe that there is a finite amount of oil in this world and that we have discovered every single deposit there is and that that fact alone is the reason a barrel of oil is trading at $90 – $140 a barrel.
31. You have to believe that a diploma or degree can be a substitute for intelligence and common sense.
32. You have to believe that this message is part of a vast right wing CONSPIRACY.

God help us all.

Frosty E. Hardison is a graduate of Colorado Technical University with a degree in Business Administration. An MBA honors student with a 3.83 GPA, Frosty is most recognized for standing up against the Al Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” being shown as a stand alone “science film” in his daughter’s science class in January 2007. He specializes in data research and analysis as well as work flow/production efficiency. For questions, see his website.

Supreme Court Clerks

January 22, 2010

Craig Lerner & Nelson Lund, guest-blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy, propose a reform to the way clerks are assigned to the Supreme Court Justices. (link)

Ideally, the justices would be in complete control over what cases get heard by the court, and what exactly is decided. A tremendous amount of energy is put into their nomination and appointment, and a tremendous amount of trust is put on their shoulders.

As it is today, the justices are filtered from each other and the “real” world by their clerks. This has the deleterious effect that the Justices aren’t really in control of what comes in or goes out of the court. The clerks have a great deal of power to control what the justices see and what they write or say.

The proposed solution is to have clerks work for the court rather than individual justices. Any work they do should be available for all the justices. When it comes to writing opinions and reading legal papers, they will have to do that on their own.

I’m not one to impose my will on how the court works. If there is anyone who truly understands what the court needs to do their job better, it is the court. Any artificial constraints we put on them will, at best, only hurt their efficiency a little bit, and at worst, become an impassible roadblock.

However, it does concern me that some justices hide behind their clerks. At the very least, I would encourage the justices on the court to somehow give the American people a feeling that they are really in charge. I can only imagine what kind of damage the reputation of the court would suffer if the American people came to believe it was being run by a bunch of twenty-something, never-legally-employed college graduates.

The same goes, of course, for the House and the Senate, and the presidency.

I believe the problem largely stems from the massive size of government. Congress tries to do too much. The president is president of too much. There are too many laws, and too many ways to interpret the constitution. Each branch should be focused on keeping their jobs doable, and should rightly question any new workloads people wish to add to them.

If this means the courts take measures to limit the number of writs, then so be it. That’s up to the justices, though.

If this means we need more justices on the supreme court, or another layer of courts between them and the people, so be it.

Regardless, this is a problem they have to tackle. Until the American people are satisfied, they have not resolved that problem.

Racist Sotomayor MUST Resign

May 27, 2009

If Sonia Sotomayor really believes skin color and ethnicity has anything to do with a person’s ability to judge fairly, then she is a racist. Our country has abandoned racism a long time ago, or so I had hoped.

If she truly feels like she is superior in any way because of her ethnic heritage, she should resign immediately because she is a racist bigot.

More here

Contact info for our senators is above. They have the power to stop this nomination and ask President Obama to choose someone who doesn’t believe race and ethnicity have a bearing on a person’s character and qualifications.

Sonia Sotomayor: Not Fit

May 27, 2009

If you love the rule of law, and not of men, then Sonia Sotomayor cannot be confirmed as a member of the Supreme Court.

As an appeals court judge, her conduct was more that of an activist than of a judge. Rather than represent the ideals of justice and fairness, she embraced injustice and unfairness. Anytime someone on the bench shows preference for one side or the other, and does anything more than preside over the courtroom during hearings and apply the law as it has already been written and interpreted, is a time that they go beyond their duties and begin the malpractice of injustice.

As a country, we rely on the law. We rely on judges being an arbiter of what the law means. We rely on them applying the law equally for everyone. That is, as a rich, white male, I should get the same treatment under the law as a poor illegal immigrant from Mexico. I should be judged on my actions and intentions, not on arbitrary distinguishing characteristics such as skin color and heritage.

We’ve moved beyond that racism. We’ve long ago decided that the ideal of justice is too important to leave in the hands of politicians and administrators, entrusting that sacred duty to those who can be kept impartial and separate from politics by force of constitution.

I understand why leftists like Barack Obama rely on judges who are not just. The law is simply not in their favor. After all, even way back in 1787, when the constitution was first adopted, the constitution was put into place to protect the people from tyrants like Barack Obama who come with a message of hope, love, and peace, but come bearing the sword of destruction through government imposition. If the constitution were applied as it was written and intended, Barack Obama and socialists all over our government, from both parties, would find themselves completely stripped of the power to hurt the people with their policies and laws.

It requires a special kind of judge, a judge who can read the constitution, read the laws, and then decide for herself what it should mean rather than what it does mean, and then change the laws and constitution of our country to suit the case. Without this kind of judge, socialism would’ve died a long time ago in the USA.

Sonia Sotomayor, and any person who cannot read the constitution and understand what it meant so long ago, and apply those same principles to cases today, is not fit to serve on that bench. To allow them to do so cuts the constitution to shreds, to the point where we are today, where the federal government is not bound by it and in truth, neither are we. It leads to chaos, anarchy, the rule of men and not of law. It leads to injustice, social or otherwise.

I cannot permit Sonia Sotomayor to sit on that court. I hope that all those who value the rule of law will oppose her appointment, as well as any nominee like her. The senate can and must hold President Obama to appoint someone who will rule based solely on the facts of the case, the original meaning of the constitution, and the current state of the laws of our country. No other justice will do.

Homosexual Marriage Allowed in California

May 15, 2008

The big news of today has dramatic meaning in Washington State. The California Supreme Court determined that Homosexual Marriage (there’s nothing gay about it) is protected by the California State Constitution.

(more…)

Shiny New Supreme Court

March 25, 2008

So this is what it feels like to wake up in the morning having a little more freedom than you did yesterday. Michelle Malkin comments on today’s Supreme Court ruling that the international court has no jurisdiction in US law. (link)

(more…)