Friday, June 23, 2006


by Jonathan Garthwaite - June 22nd, 2006 -
Townhall recently sat down with Mark W. Smith, author of "Disrobed: The New Battle to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts" to ask him a few questions about his controversial new book.

TH: It seems a lot of Americans don’t pay a lot of attention to judicial issues. What do you say to those who don’t seem interested in the issue?

MWS: Courts decide cases involving all aspects of American life. In many respects, they are more important than the President or Congress because in reality the power to “interpret” the law is the power to make the law. We have gay marriage and gay civil unions in America today; your local politicians can take your home thanks to the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision; many Americans have no right to own a gun for self-defense, and you can abort an unborn child but can’t destroy spotted owl eggs. All this wackiness thanks to our left-leaning courts.

TH: What can conservatives do to prevent these sorts of damaging decisions like the ones you talk about on gay marriage and eminent domain?

MWS: In Disrobed I lay out a brand-new battle plan to bring the Reagan Revolution to America’s courts—the last, and most important, area of government remaining to be conquered. Unless we adopt Ronald Reagan’s Cold War strategy (“We win. They lose.”) in the courts, brace for more liberal lunacies from our friends in black robes.

Invoking the name of Ronal Reagan in a campaign to go to war against liberal Judges is an effective strategy. The corruption of our courts has gone so far that many conservatives and libertarians are starting to give up on the concept of returning to a judiciary that rules according to the constitution with laws passed by our democratically elected representatives, and embrace the tactics of the left. They have reached the point where they are ready to totally politicize our courts and embrace something they call "conservative activist rulings".

It is discouraging to me that after 10 years of arguing that only a return to the court system envisioned by our founders could save the form of government that has served us so well, those I usually support would be considering this strategy. I have tried to get many to understand that the numerous campaigns to pass constitutional amendments was useless, unless it changed the balance of power between the courts and the legislature. I have not yet gotten conseratives and libertarians to accept that. I have tried to generate a campaign to start impeaching judges. Conservatives and libertarians have resisted that for some reason as well. Now, after all this time, we have someone who is leading us on the path that I predicted 10 years ago would be a mistake, and which I still abhor. Adopting the liberal strategy to politicize the courts is not the answer.

I pray this book does not generate much support or following. The answer is still to stop Judges from making law, not have both political wings fighting within the courts as to which philosophy will win.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Mention God? Don't You Dare

by Ben Shapiro - June 21st, 2006 -
Brittany McComb, valedictorian of Foothill High School in Clark County, Nevada, stood up at her graduation and began to speak. A few paragraphs into her speech, school administrators cut off McComb's microphone. She didn't tell a dirty joke. She didn't curse. She didn't insult her classmates or her teachers. Brittany McComb committed the egregious sin of attempting to thank God and Jesus. "I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb stated. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."

People here in Eastern Carolina like to think of themselves as being from God's country. The illusion is that we live very Christian lives. In truth, even in our politics, we stray far from anything that resembles what our religions would suggest we do. This article is one of the best I have seen in ridiculing the liberal democratic party acceptance of banning God from the public sphere. These same people go to church on Sunday and claim they support the Constitution, but their actions cannot begin to embrace with honesty the words in the Constituion that require "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Can the democratic party not read the words PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF? You can flaunt homosexuality and promiscuity in the streets. Parades with naked bodies draped with over size sex organs are not just defended but lauded by democrats and their elected representatvies. But you cannot pray.

There is no doubt that if Brittany McComb had lauded her preferred form of sex, and even described it in disgusting detail, the ACLU would have fought for her right to say it. However God is banned from free speech and the free exercise of religion is never even considered protected. That bigotry is one of the primary reasons I consider that the democratic party left me, I did not leave it.

That our judges defend this double standard is not only corrupt, it is contemptible.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Are You Able To Obey This Law?

by John Stossel - June 7, 2006 -

Some shortsighted employers don't give jobs to people with disabilities, even when the disabled could do the work. Politicians thought the way to stop this discrimination was to make it illegal. That's what politicians tend to do. But in the real world, even Congress can't wish problems away. Their well-intended solutions create nasty unintended consequences. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is proving to be yet another sad example.

Too bad John Stossel did not really think his article through. It is not the legislature making complex laws that is the problem. It is the court system of tyrants that will not allow anyone to enforce the laws with any intelligence that is the problem. No one can ever win when the courts do not think they are responsible for the consquences of their corrupt and inane rulings.

The consequences of the courts in this situation are, as usual, the complete reverse of the legislative intent. Like the corruption with which courts have applied any and all laws trying to protect children from sexual abuse, the result of the disabilities law is worse than the original problem. The more lawsuits over the handicapped, the greater the number of handicapped that are unemployed, and the fewer handicapped there are that actually do these jobs well as they know they cannot be fired. So they flake off and take advantage of their power and employers therefore make sure they never hire others who are handicapped. A cycle only a judge with a power agenda could defend.

Only idiots could mess up our courts as bad as they are messed up. Therefore it is impossible to call our judges anything except . . . IDIOTS!

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Revisiting Affirmative Action

by Linda Chavez - June 7, 2006 -
In 2003, in a pair of cases involving the University of Michigan, the Court handed down decisions that pleased neither side in the debate. On the one hand, the Court sided with affirmative action proponents by allowing schools to use race as a "plus factor" in deciding whom to admit. But the Court also said efforts to achieve racial "diversity" had to be narrowly tailored and could not utilize rigid point systems like the one adopted by Michigan for undergraduate admissions.

As usual our courts seek perfect justice, and simply dispense stupidity instead. The essence of the rulings in these prior cases was simple. Michigan had no past discrimination to correct, however it was okay to grant special privileges to certain members of certain races to achieve "diversity" anyway. However you had to make sure that you only denied justice to a small number of whites in this search for diverstiy, and you had to hold your head at just the right angle while pretending that the person being denied justice was not being discriminated against as egregiously as back when subtle and hypocritical tests were used to exclude blacks from justice.

Our courts never seem to have heard the premise that you cannot be a little bit "pregnant". It is also impossible to dispense a little bit of injustice. Our government is not color blind, as Martin Luther King, Jr. sought. Our government is totally and completely color consumed, leaving everyone outraged no matter what the outcome. Blacks who do not get special privileges are angry that they missed the cut, and continue to feel it is discrimination anyway, even when there is no discrimination. Whites who would not have gotten into the schools anyway, are allowed to be outraged that they did not make it and can assume it is only because they are white.

We have not reduced racism with this idiocy of affirmative action. We have increased it.

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Roy Moore, The Imperial Congress,
And The Rule Of Law

By Christopher G. Adamo - June 1st, 2006 - Commentary
When Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore defied an order from Federal Judge Myron Thompson in 2003, and refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, he was summarily expelled from office under the pretense that America is a nation of laws, not of men.

Moore contended that those laws could not define or promote a healthy and free society if they were established or enforced as the result of arbitrary whims of those in power. Thus, he asserted that moral and ethical absolutes, as codified in the Ten Commandments, have been and should remain as the basis for American law.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union, aided and abetted by their toadies in the media, were quick to warn our society of the dangers it faced if Moore's insolence was allowed to go uncontested.

This is an excellent article delineating some of the serious consequences of the growing hatred for our courts and the sycophants that serve as judges. It is amusing that our legislatures only go after the people in the courts who are trying to rein in the power of the courts, but are too frightened to impeach those who flaunt the power of the courts to subvert representative democracy.