The Republic Of Kennedy
by Mona Charen - June 26th, 2008 - Creator's Syndicate
In the United States today we no longer enjoy the rule of law but instead the rule of lawyers — robed lawyers with the exalted title "justice" — but still unelected lawyers enacting their own policy preferences.We live in a nation subservient to "the rule of judges". Whatever freedom we still possess hangs by a thread on the whim of an arrogant tyranical justice who has repeatedly expressed more admiration for global law than for our Constitution. It should firghten you.
Before their commonsense decision in the Second Amendment case, a different complement of justices (Justice Anthony Kennedy siding with the liberals) demonstrated what a flimsy hold the words of the Constitution have on our jurisprudence. In fact, when you consider that the court is pretty well divided between four liberals and four conservatives with Justice Kennedy swinging from one side to another as the spirit moves him, we now enjoy a Republic of Kennedy. All this fuss and bother about the presidential race is misplaced. The most powerful man in the land is someone most Americans couldn't pick out of a lineup.
Judge Rejects Bid To Let Police Check Immigration Status
by Jennifer Steinhauer - June 26th, 2008 - The New York Times
A Superior Court judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit seeking to end a longstanding police policy that prohibits officers from initiating contact with people for the sole purpose of learning their immigration status.This ruling is another in along line of rulings that prove the arrogance of our judiciary and its antipathy to our culture. It is certain that the courts will defend illegal aliens against the interests of American citizens. The decision will always go in favor of the illegal alien. It is also certain that if a case is between an atheist and a Christian, the decision will go in favor of the atheist. Free speech, according to our courts, only exists for liberals and every college campus in America has speech codes that define defense of our culture as "hate speech". Demonstrations can be held to shut down the speaker. No judge will interfere and only the rights of those opposed to America ever prevail.
The policy has come under scrutiny in recent months after the killing of a high school football star, Jamiel Shaw Jr., who the police say was murdered by an illegal immigrant who is a member of a gang.
You no longer need to know anything about our laws or our Constitution to understand our courts. Determine what will damage America the most, and that is how judges will rule. Welcome to America and the "rule of judges".
High Court Affirms Gun Rights In Historic Decision
by By Mark Sherman - June 26th, 2008 - Associated Press (Yahoo)
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."There are two kinds of militia. Today we have well organized National Guard forces and Reserve Military forces, nominally under the control of the State Governor. They are a force whose command structure can be nationalized for any purpose government desires. These are most emphatically state militias, meaning they are controlled by government command.
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individuals right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state [emphasis added] militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
There is a more traditional militia that is organized at the local level and it is NOT responsive to the state or its government. They are totally responsive to the will of the volunteers, the people. Note the writer of the article above has inserted the word state (my emphasis) into the discussion with his followup sentence.
State militias are what we have today. However the volunteer militia, locally organized, is what is critical to freedom. Note the explanation phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" in our Constitutional guarantee. It is followed by the exact text of our right . . . "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The preceeding phrases do not limit it our qualify our right, they explain it.
That is the important distinction. You don't find individual freedom in a controlled state because freedom is of little interest to pro-government forces. Volunteer and individually based militias, the kind that can resist government attempts to suppress freedom, require that the people be well armed against the state so they can organize whenever needed to resist state aggression. A state militia will never be on the side of the people, but will instead be responsive to the command structure. That is a state militia. Free militias, militias of a free people, can only exist when the people can voluntarily commit to fight. That can only happen when they are armed against state aggression.
It is typical that those who don't believe we have a Constitutional right to bear arms, always insert the word "state" before militia, changing the meaning of our Constitution to defend their goal of limiting freedom and empowering the state. That goal is tyrannical suppression of people armed sufficiently that local volunteer militias can resist the power of the state. Throughout the twentieth century, every government of tyrannical evil first disarmed its citizens.
The Democrats lie about wanting to reduce crime when they really want state power to be unchallenged in any meaningful way. Now comes the truly frightening thought. All that stands between freedom and totalitarian power in America is ONE supreme court justice. ONE. This 5 to 4 ruling was determined by a single vote. We are that close to losing our Constitution and our freedom.
Court Rules In Favor Of
Chinese Muslim Held At Gitmo
by Bill Mears - June 23rd, 2008 - CNN.com
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a Chinese Muslim held by the U.S. military was improperly labeled an "enemy combatant" by the Pentagon.The clear intention is that war is about to become the same kind of ridiculous farce that our judicial tyrants have invented for criminal cases in America. You hear constantly about "civil" rights. The truth is that our corrupt and power hungry judges don't care about "civil" rights at all. They care about "criminal" rights. They have for years been more concerned with the power to control our government conferred on them when they subvert justice by freeing criminals than with the consequences to innocent citizens of freeing criminals who have clearly harmed others. Victims have no rights in America. Certainly no rights that judges care about.
Well now they have decided that just shooting at our troops is not enough to confer enemy combatant status on our enemies. Our armed forces cannot incarcerate the enemy they find on the battlefield unless they can prove they were not there by mistake. A Chinese man goes to Afghanistan for training in a terrorist camp. According to the judicial tyrants, we must first determine if he had some innocent reason to be learning about terror tactics. We must prove that he had animus against America. His presence in the training process of our enemy is not enough. These judges now confer rights upon our enemies. Our troops are presumed guilty and the enemy is presumed innocent. In war these kinds of rules are insane.
The Supreme Court Goes to War
by John Loo - June 17th, 2008 - The Wall Street Journal
Last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has been painted as a stinging rebuke of the administration's antiterrorism policies. From the celebrations on most U.S. editorial pages, one might think that the court had stopped a dictator from trampling civil liberties. Boumediene did anything but. The 5-4 ruling is judicial imperialism of the highest order.Of the articles about this judicial abuse, this one gives me a little more comfort that I am not alone in my outrage.
Boumediene should finally put to rest the popular myth that right-wing conservatives dominate the Supreme Court. Academics used to complain about the Rehnquist Court's "activism" for striking down minor federal laws on issues such as whether states are immune from damage lawsuits, or if Congress could ban handguns in school. Justice Anthony Kennedy -- joined by the liberal bloc of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- saves his claims of judicial supremacy for the truly momentous: striking down a wartime statute, agreed upon by the president and large majorities of Congress, while hostilities are ongoing, no less.
America Will Regret High Court's Decision
by Ken Blackwell - June 17th, 2008 - Townhall.com
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 opinion in Boumediene v. Bush will go down as one of the most egregiously-wrong decisions in history. Breaking 200 years of settled precedent, the Court has rewritten the Constitution’s allocation of national security powers. In essence, the narrow majority attacked the actions of a Commander-in-Chief in time of war. It attacked the law as rewritten by Congress in response to a prior decision of this very Court. And it attacked the Court by aggressively ignoring its own prior decisions. The "logic" of this case sets up a bare majority of the Justices as supreme over the President, the Congress, and even other decisions of the Court itself.The only problem that I have with this article is that it is so logical and not sufficiently emotional. It is a very intelligent assessment of the the basis for seeing this ruling as wrong even despite using words like egregious. However the abuse of power by these 5 tyrants does not appear to be seen as despicable as it should. This ruling is how these judicial tyrants keep taking more and more control of our nation in their quest for "the rule of judges".
At least it is not like George Will's article defending this idiocy.
Hospital Calls Cops And Feels The Sting
by Maura Lerner - June 15th, 2008 - Minneapolis Star-Tribune
When the emergency room staff at Northfield City Hospital thought an obviously disturbed patient was about to turn violent, they did what many hospitals do in that situation: They called the police.This is another case in the growing idea that every situation must have a positive description of what to do and how to do it, or judges get to second guess actions. The hospital here spent 5 hours trying to subdue the patient before resorting to calling the police.
In this instance, officers used a Taser to shock the man. The patient dropped to the floor, was injected with medications and transferred to the psychiatric unit at another hospital, according to an official report about the February incident.
Now federal and state health officials have cited the Northfield hospital for violating the patient's rights.
The bizarre idea that a patient who turns violent is owed some special care to determine if he is violent in such a way that the police can be called is typical of the growing insanity of the idiots we call judges. Violence is violence. However in America today, you may not protect yourself from the violence of others. You must wait for the police, acording to idiot judges. Now the idiot judges argue that if you call for the police too soon, or in the wrong circumstance, the violent person can sue YOU.
I can just see it now, trying to read the manual about when you can call the police in the middle of a violent confrontation. "Let's see, in paragraph 5 it says blah, blah, blah . . . so I get to call?"
Let's call this what it is. Judicial insanity.
Kennedy Orders Suicide Pact
Editorial - June 13th, 2008 - The Wall Street Journal
In a pair of 2006 laws – the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act – Congress and the President had worked out painstaking and good-faith rules for handling enemy combatants during wartime. These rules came in response to previous Supreme Court decisions demanding such procedural care, and they are the most extensive ever granted to prisoners of war.The time has arrived when Americans must decide whether we can trust our own courts or whether the courts are enemies that must be destroyed.
Yet as Justice Antonin Scalia notes in dissent, "Turns out" the same Justices "were just kidding." Mr. Kennedy now deems those efforts inadequate, based on only the most cursory analysis. As Chief Justice John Roberts makes clear in his dissent, the majority seems to dislike these procedures merely because a judge did not sanctify them. In their place, Justice Kennedy decrees that district court judges should derive their own ad hoc standards for judging habeas petitions. Make it up as you go!
Justice Jackson once famously observed that the Constitution is "not a suicide pact." About Anthony Kennedy's Constitution, we're not so sure.
It is absolutely clear that these Justices live in a bizarre universe where the courts are involved in every minor aspect of every citizen's life. With this ruling they demand the right to judge the appropriate conduct of each soldier on the battlefield. And they demand the right to defend the conduct of our enemies, granting everyone in the world the right of Habeas Corpus for the act of trying to kill an American. They want to protect our enemies and help them kill our soldiers.
When you protect and defend our enemies, you become an enemy. If our enemies are trying to kill us, we should have the right to kill our enemies, even the ones who merely protect the killers after the fact.
We now have 5 judicial tyrants who have made it clear . . . our enemies are their friends. We are at war and they have taken sides with our enemies. They should be impeached. I never thought I would reach this point. However our nation is coming apart. Rulings such as these are insane. No rational person could make up such idiocy. With this ruling I have reached the point where I believe we must consider civil war. A shooting war. And it must come soon before our nation is destroyed by those who hate us. Like this imbecile Justice Kennedy and his four traitorous companions.
Our States' Right To Kill The Rapist
by Mike Adams - June 2nd, 2008 - Townhall.com
Our Founding Fathers would never have imagined the constitutionality of executing rapists to be a serious question. Indeed my own state, North Carolina, considered rape – along with murder, burglary, and arson – to be punishable by death for the better part of the 20th Century. None of this would be controversial until some time after the Court – led by Chief Justice Earl Warren – announced that it had somehow inherited a new standard for declaring statutes in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment.I agree. To rule that we have evolved to the point where a man can rape a child and is not subject to whatever penalty the State wishes to mete out, is to say that Judges are the sole arbiter of punishment in our society. Certainly they have sabotaged justice to the extent that our revolving door system has turned our nation into the most crime riddled system imaginable. Today the rule of law, the concept that people can pass laws and that the courts will assure their just enforcement, has become a joke. Judges overturn our laws based on "progressive" whim. What used to be the rule of law has become the rule of judges.
That standard is now known as the “evolving standard of decency.” The case of Coker v. Georgia (1977) may well represent its most indecent application.