Wednesday, November 02, 2005


The Supreme Court of the United States of America has always fascinated me. Perhaps it is because on one branch of my family tree, you would find a Justice of that august body. That Justice and I, share the same name, but have/had different political views.

I am researching this Justice I am related to, and plan to write a short book about his life. Don’t deceive yourself; all judges fit some political mold. We know this because all of us can read their writings, and they all make some kind of contribution to the whole of America jurisprudence. The President has the duty to select a candidate with the same political views that he believes in; BECAUSE THE PEOPLE VOTED THE PRESIDENT INTO OFFICE, AND THAT MEANS THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT A JUDGE LIKE THE PRESIDENT.
Why is it never an issue when a liberal President, (Bill Clinton) nominated a liberal Justice (Ruth Ginsberg)??? So now, we are told by the liberals in the Senate, that "President Bush must nominate someone agreeable to all??????” Won’t happen dreamer. You liberals won't like the way the court is headed, so? Did you care about my views when you had it all. Because of your refusal to listen to the are out of power in two branches of government, and the third is slipping out of your hands. The Republicans have listened to the people, and will reap the benifits of listening, then doing.

If all of the Supreme Court Justices since day one had been content to do their job and their job only, this would be a much better country. The high court, delayed the freeing of slaves, made a mockery of reconstruction of the South after the horrible Civil War was over.
OK, here is the good and bad: It has delayed justice, yet it has brought justice. It has freed yet enslaved. It has killed, yet given life. (abortion and death sentence stays)
I could forgive, forget or get over most of the bad rulings of the court, but there is one issue that looms so large, so huge, that millions of lives will be affected by any ruling this court makes on the question. You know I am talking aboutthe millions and millions of humans aborted i our country, even though each was a child of God. There is blood on the hands of the Supreme Court. Perhaps that will change, but I would be content to let it be decided by the people. Yes, I would never talk about the abortion issue again, if abortion ever came to a vote by the people, instead of being brought to our nation by a fiat of nine pompous people in black robes. The court is not a legislative body, yet lately it has been acting like one, completely usurping the role of the executive branch and the legislative branch.

I see a better future for my country, after this latest battle of confirmation is over. President Bush will have his nominee confirmed, but not without a fight.
But I have wanted this fight to take place for decades. The country will not allow a repeat of the JUDGE ROBERT BORK lynching.

When the nine men and women in black robes return to the constitution, America will breathe a sigh of relief.
I can name you several dozen laws that have been overturned by the Supreme Court lately, struck down, even though the citizens voted for the laws. The list is long and disgraceful.
I googled the words LAWS OVERTURNED, and want to share snippets from the results of that search.
Yes, some of these will remind you of bad decisions of the court, and some will remind you of good decisions. That is a subject to your conscience. But all of these little snippets were examples of the Supreme Court overruling the citizens of this great nation.
If the country was given a chance to vote on these matters, and the results became law that the courts could not overturn…….this country would be better.
These are all COURT LEGISLATED CASES, THE CITIZENS WERE IGNORED IN THESE MATTERS. The reason some want the courts to have extraordinary powers, powers they usurped, powers they should not have, is that the questions before the Court would fail in the court of public opinion, and in any vote.
Do you think for a second that Partial Birth Abortion would still be legal if the people had a say in it?
There is not a chance. Let’s have the vote, and forever settle the question. Well in some way we have a vote now, we will have a decent, thoughtful, honest, intelligent judge added to the Supreme Court.
Think about these snippets….think how the Court has changed our nation. Yes, the courts have made some very good decisions, but the harm to courts have brought to our country, far outweighs the good.

1. US Sodomy Laws overturned
2. A judge dismissed a lawsuit against a New York email marketer, who was being sued under Maryland's 2002 Commercial Electronic Mail Act, ruling that the law
3. The Anti-Sodomy laws of 13 states were struck down today.
4. Industry Seeks to Have Unconstitutional Video Game Law Overturned . .
5. SALEM, Ore. - A judge on Friday struck down as unconstitutional a voter-passed property rights law
6. October 14, 2005. Voter-passed Measure 37 law is overturned ... A judge on Friday overturned a voter-passed property compensation law
7. "Internet Laws Overturned in New York and Georgia: Curbs on Smut and Anonymity Are Blocked."
8. Fla. adoption law overturned. April 24, 2003
9. Minnesota's Concealed Carry Law Overturned
showdown over voting rights, a US appeals courtyesterday upheld an injunction barring the state of Georgia from enforcing ...
10. Virtual Child Porn Law Overturned Legacy Article Image. Related Videos. virtual child porn
11. A federal judge in Washington yesterday overturned a law prohibiting DC residents from circulating or voting
12. Terri's Law overturned. The Florida Supreme Court struck down the law passed last October that saved Terri Schiavo's life.
13. State Official English Law Overturned
14. Women's Rights Law Overturned (May 15, 2000): In 5–4 decision, Court invalidates six-year-old provision of federal law that permits victims of rape, domestic violence, and other crimes to sue attackers in federal court.
15. Public Student Prayers Forbidden (June 19, 2000): Court rules, 6–3, that prayers led by students at high school football games are no exception to earlier decisions against officially sponsored prayer in public schools. All prayers at school and games are declared unconstitutional.
16. Golf Carts for Disabled Persons on the PGA (May 29, 2001): By a majority of 7–2, the Court found that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires the PGA to allow disabled golfers to use golf carts during qualification rounds on PGA tour.
17. Virtual Child Pornography Protected (April 16, 2002): Court, 6–3, holds that 1996 child pornography prevention law went too far in banning computer-generated child pornography.
18. Justices Uphold Government's Use of Eminent Domain (June 23, 2005): In one of the most controversial cases of the session, the Court rules, 5–4, in Kelo v. City of New London, that a government can take possession of private property against the owner's will and transfer it to private developers when the result will promote economic development.
The Fifth Amendment allows the government to take private property for public use. In writing the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens says “public use” also means “public purpose.” “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,” he says. “Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.”
19. The voters approved Measure 37 after the property rights group Oregonians in Action mounted a campaign that put the proposals on the ballot by initiative petition.
20. Voters approved a similar property compensation measure in 2000 as a constitutional amendment. But the state Supreme Court threw it out.

I rest my case.


Blogger Mojotek said...

Hmmm... you seem to forget that the reason the Supreme Court is there at all is for "Checks and Balances".

The legislative and executive branches put forth bills, laws, and legislation all the time SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF FURTHERING their political careers (from ALL parties). That's why a group of "9 pompous people in black robes" needs to exist.

Yes, they may have some political ties before they reach the seat, but their seat is for life and they have no need to lobby for one side or the other. Their position is the top position in their field and 'for life', so it removes the need for political jockying and grandstanding to try and get ahead.

The issue of abortion aside, without the supreme court, legislators would constantly be presenting (and probably passing) laws simply to appear popular or appeal to a popular issue of their constituents.

You are sorely mistaken if you think removing the Supreme Court from the equation of government would give the people exactly what they need and want. Mob mentalities (irrational behavior) goes along with all types of issues, and the Supreme Court is there to insure that emotionally charged legislation doesn't set precidents we will greatly regret later.

Blogger Yong said...

Hi...Thanks for renting my blog. All the best to you. I have also added you to my 'Wise Destinations' links. Cheers!

Blogger web_loafer said...

I agree with you in most of what you said, but I was careful to point out that they have made many good decisions. But, when a state passes a referedum, such as California did several times by overwhelming majority only to have the SCOTUS strike the law down, How could anyone think that is fair? One such law passed with 2 out of 3 people voting for it. Where was the representation for those 2 out of 3 people?
I know the checks and balances are needed, yet there is no check to the Court, when they say no, the people have no say. The Dread Scott decision is a good example. If in 1840, everyone in thr United States could have voted up or down on the issue of slavery, it would have been abolished. There were many more people opposed to slavery than in favor. The checks and balances for the Supreme Court in this matter, cost about 600,000 men their lifes, and millions of men wounded for life.

"and the Supreme Court is there to insure that emotionally charged legislation doesn't set precidents we will greatly regret later."
What a scarey thing, you mentioned. So 9 people are able to overrule millions of concerned citizens?
I am not ready to allow this to happen any longer.
It is a government, by the people, of the people and for the people, unless the SCOTUS doesn't like your view. If this issue is not dealt with quickly all of our religious rights, and the right to defend our borders will disappear.
I do thank you for your comment though, I agree with some, but am worried this may be the last chance we have to mold a court that looks at the constitution first, not what they believe the constitution should have said.

Blogger Franco said...


I've done a logo for you, my appologies if it's not what you wanted :( I'm french and I wasn't sure what a bluff is... my undesrtanding of bluff is in poker :)
But what I could find is that it's like an abrubt cliff?
Anyways... check what I did and let me know if you like it or not... of if it's not at all what you wanted, I can try something else...

Blogger Jay said...

Everybody hates the Supreme court when they do something they don't agree with, but love them when they do agree. Take the time when they gave Bush the election...those against Bush thought they were way out of line while those for Bush didn't make a peep about "activist judges".

It's all a matter of perspective. History kind of proves that when intelligent and thoughtful people obtain the job as a Supreme justice...they tend to ignore politics in their decisions. I think even the right should be concerned with filling empty positions with those who base their decisions on party politics, no matter which party they happen to personally like. I wish we could get back to the days when we could choose the leaders of our country based upon ability rather than whether they please all the correct religious industries or if they might be fun to have a beer with.

Post a Comment

<< home

Find sex offenders near YOU

Advanced Meta Tag Generator