Ending Judicial Activism

[Minuteman]

A good Bill. I doubt that it will pass though. The Supreme Court is out of control and needs to be reined in.


Ending Judicial Activism (http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2768.shtml)

S. 520 is narrowly drawn. It does four things:

• It limits the court’s ability to hear cases regarding references to God in public spaces: “The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal … any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer … [thereof]..., concerning that entity’s, [or] officer’s … acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” This restriction applies to federal trial courts as well.

• It pushes the court’s justices to make decisions based upon the content and meaning of the Constitution: “In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court … may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization … other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.”

• It makes clear that any rulings that the Supreme Court or lower courts have made in the past or may try to make in the future in regard to this legislation are not binding on state courts. “Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 … is not binding precedent on any State court.”

• It simplifies the impeachment of federal judges who try to regulate religious symbols in public places. “To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court … or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of that justice or judge … by reason of section 1260 or 1370 … engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of — (1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; (2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.”

S. 520 utilizes both powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution: (1) creating exceptions to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, and (2) providing regulations for its exercise of such jurisdiction. By creating exceptions, Congress removes an entire category of cases which reach the court. When the bill prohibits the Court from hearing cases challenging government officials’ references to God as the source of law, liberty, or government, it provides an exception to its jurisdiction. When the bill prohibits the Court from relying upon foreign law, when it provides penalties for judges who violate the bill, and when it provides that certain decisions of the Court shall not constitute precedents that are binding on State courts, it provides regulations for the exercise of jurisdiction in cases which the Court still can hear and decide. It is in this latter area — regulation — where a collision of the Court and Congress is likely to occur.

Read the Bill here (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s520is.txt.pdf)

[Not_Whistlin_Dixie]

Remember Kelo v New London, Connecticut?

That was the Supreme Court decision that held that it's OK for a government to condemn someone's property to get it into the hands of another owner who can afford to pay higher taxes.

The justices who voted with the majority on that one need to be impeached. They are not fit to hold public office in a free society.

[Not_Whistlin_Dixie]

The Lawrence v Texas majority should be impeached.

That was a Supreme Court decision that struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy between consenting adults.

The Lawrence majority in effect held that sodomy is "liberty" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

The short answer to that claim is that it is a lie. When the Constitution was ratified, the penalty for homosexual intercourse was death. The idea that the Framers intended to declare a right to engage in it is just too ridiculous to bear scrutiny.

[Not_Whistlin_Dixie]

I can't pass over Roe v Wade. This decision famously pretended to find within the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of liberty a right of a woman in the first trimester of pregnancy to have an abortion. It held that because abortion is Fifth Amendment "liberty," all state laws against abortion are abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment.

This was another judicial lie of flabbergasting impudence. Abortion was punishable as homicide at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

Various justices have acknowledged as much but professed to be obliged to follow Roe anyway because, having once been decided it became, in effect, sacrosanct.

I regard that view as nothing but pernicious rubbish. It can only mean that they view their own writings as a higher law than the Constitution that they pretend to interpret. It reveals their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution as lies.

If the opinions of Supreme Court justices are a higher law than the Constitution, then this country is not a constitutional republic but an oligarchy of appointed dictators.