Note about judges, ACLU and the Pledge

[daveleau]

The court which passed (and then stayed) the judgment that the Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional is a very liberal court in most people's eyes. This court has had 5 verdicts overturned this year by the Supreme Court. 5! The judge is one of many "activist judges" that serves a tenured position in our courts.

The ACLU was founded in 1931 by a man whom Congress named as a communist. (remember, the McCarthyism problems began AFTER WWII, this was well before that) The ACLU has been funded by communist organizations throughout history. The ACLU found that their opinions varied with the American public's opinions many times, yet searched for ways to circumvent this problem. They found out early on that these activist judges, who are above the law and above public opinion, can be an invaluable tool in circumventing public opinions.

So, we have a conundrum. We have judges appointed by presidents (who are given money by the ACLU lobby), who are given a life-long job of deciding our laws. These judges often turn out to be activists once they get on the bench. The party affiliation of the presidents does not matter, since the activist judge that made this recent ruling was appointed by Nixon (R). These judges cannot be ousted by elections when they go against the people's desires and when they twist the words of the Constitution to turn us towards communist / socialist ideals which pervade our society and are being more entrenched everyday.

We do have a course of action, though!!! It only takes ONE House of Representative member to put forth a motion to impeach a judge. So, to make a long story short- WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN! Ask them to impeach the activist judges in our land who are taking our country, our liberty and our patriotic ideals away from us!

Get info here on how to contact your Rep, easily and begin the upheaval of the activist judges!

Dave

[lost-and-found]

thank you Dave, my rep has received a letter in handwriting (hopefully that helps a bit since when you handwrite they really see you care about what you wrote)

[MegalosSkylaki]

An "independant Judiciary" is part of the Constitutional scheme of "Balance of Power".

While some Judges clearly go beyond the mandate of their position, I doubt that altering the "balance" in favor of CONGRESS of all bodies is friendly toward Liberty in the United States in the long-run.

The "freeman" tradition flowered on the well-watered slopes of the Eastern colonies. With Westward expansion, a waterfall of less than 15 in per sq. mile was experienced, the minimum required to sustain human life per mile.

This led to a call for "internal Improvements"--and a more activist Federal Gov't in general.

The Populist Party was big in Navada and other such States and Territories. The Progressives--in Wisconsin. and in Western States as the term was then defined.

Hydrological planning of water resources requires Big Gov't.

The only solution I can foresee is delimiting Gov't power more generally and across the board. Not shifting it to a --Congress.

A shift in the make-up of Congress would only then lead to yet another pack of Judges. And then another.

Iwould look to ways of disempowering all three Parts of the Federal Gov't, not increasing the power of one at the expense of the other.

daBest
daDOOG

[daveleau]

I don't see this as changing the balance from the judiciary to congress. Right now, judges have free reign to do what they like. I think they should be sent a message that they cannot do whatever they like without potential repercutions. This is something put into place already. We just don't use it, often. I agree that one branch should not have more power over the other. This is one check and balance we should be asking our reps to us.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Dave, the "reps" can change. What then ? Another go-around? Judiciary-by-Congress.

This whole silliness out of SF--and I wrote a history of some background about it on the Forum--is surviable.

I am less confident in our beloved Congress' "judgements".

DOOOOG

[Knothead]

Originally posted by MegalosSkylaki
Dave, the "reps" can change. What then ? Another go-around? Judiciary-by-Congress.

This whole silliness out of SF--and I wrote a history of some background about it on the Forum--is surviable.

I am less confident in our beloved Congress' "judgements".

DOOOOG

YOW! This is a toughie!

Yeah, I have little patience with the political posturing of congress, but at least they respond somewhat to the will of the people!

A tenured judge, OTH, knows full well he can make any damnfool decision he likes and...nothing will happen to him.

So I believe, after giving it a little bit of thought, that it might be well and good to serve notice to these guys that we're watching...and CAN and WILL exercise the ability to dump their "Activist" butts.

Keep 'em on their toes, always a good thing, sez me!

And thanks for the heads up, Dave.

[Knothead]

Nope, just thought about it again...

We HAVE to maintain those 'checks and balances'... as bad as we may think it is now, consider what would happen when the Congress gets into the habit of gunning down any judge deemed unpopular...it wouldn't be "We the people" anymore, the impetus would be from those large corporations that routinely buy congresspersons to further their OWN agendas...

I think I'm confused!

[Redwolf]

Well, the judicial branch has more power than any of the other branches. They just don't exercise their power often. The reason I think this? What dave just said:

We have judges appointed by presidents (who are given money by the ACLU lobby), who are given a life-long job of deciding our laws. These judges often turn out to be activists once they get on the bench. The party affiliation of the presidents does not matter, since the activist judge that made this recent ruling was appointed by Nixon (R).

The selection of judges by a president was originally a check and balance. Now, thanks to lobbying, that's out. I think John Walsh is right, the justice system isn't working, it needs to be replaced.

O, and I think Dr. Laura was right about the pledge and vouchers.

[Theophylact]

I have no idea what the point of bringing up the ACLU is. They had no part in the California case. But:

The "fact" that

[t]he ACLU was founded in 1931 by a man whom Congress named as a Communist

stirs me not at all. First of all, "Congress" doesn't name people as Communists, members of Congress do. There have been Red Scares since before the First World War, and rabid right-wingers long before Tail-Gunner Joe, and just as eager to carve a political career out of hysterical patriotism. Second, "Congress" is no better at identifying a Communist than anybody else. Third, I have no idea who this Communist is supposed to be. Name him, and we can discuss the "facts".

If I bothered to carry the card, you could call me a card-carrying member of the ACLU. It's been saving your ass for as long as I can remember. The Northern California chapter split with the Southern California chapter over Korematsu, and it took more than fifty years for the rest of the country to catch up with them in recognizing that the internment of American citizens who had done no wrong was tyrannical. They fought for the right of Jehovah's witnesses not to have to salute the flag. They fought for the rights of other unpopular groups (the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party) to exercise their freedom of speech: freedom is meaningless if it's only for people you agree with.

When Ashcroft's thugs come and take you away for speaking your piece, there's only one organization that can be relied upon to have the guts to defend you. And it's not the Cato Foundation or Forum on the Family.

[Theophylact]

...and in case anybody wants to hear it from the horse's mouth, here's the ACLU's own potted history:
http://www.aclu.org/library/FreedomIsWhy.pdf