Liberal Judges to burn in hell?

I recently recently attended a Republican fund-raising event where Representative Patrick McHenry (NC-R) was the keynote speaker. I agreed with much of what he had to say, particularly about reforming Social Security, until he began to speak about Terri Schiavo. He said that those judges who opposed Congressional Republicans during the Terri Schiavo situation have "a warm place reserved in eternity." (a direct quote) This is why I will probably never vote for another Republican in federal elections. For someone who talked much about God in his speech, Representative McHenry obviously does not know the teachings of Christ.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your neighbor's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:1-3 NIV

So you're gonna let what this one guy said keep you from voting in Republicans for the rest of your life? Don't close your mind and let the actions of one represent the whole Republican party.

I have to agree that the Republican party, has been taken over by fundamentalist extremist politicians, the people needs to do a clean up and get rid of all of them or the Republican party instead of been call "conservative" is going to be know as "extremist"

Watch out people that is what you get from playing "born again" Cristian with the religious extremist for votes.

Even the Republicans religious conservatives are starting to keep their distance from the secular groups.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
Tom "The Hammer" DeLay - Majority Leader

Did he mean burn in hell, or should good Americans start killing people?

I think the point that is being missed is that the Executive and Legislative branches of our government should reign in the rouge Judiciary. The Judicial Branch of government is not the last word on a subject. We have judges seeking extra-constitutional citations of law to justify their decisions. There was one decision recently that cited an unratified UN treaty to validate their decision.

Judges are supposed to read the law, not make law.

And don’t write off the whole party because this one guy, he may have been playing to his audience or maybe just a moron.


[edit on 3-4-2005 by Moon Puppy]

Judge Stanley Birch is a liberal? Appointed by the first Bush and a conservative jurist, he is on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and chastised Congress and President Bush Jr. for their activism in the Schiavo case. The attempt to override the seperation of powers between the judiciary and other two branches was a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

So who is going to reign in the rogue Executive and Congressional branches? These people don't want to appoint conservative judges--they want to install COMPLIANT judges--"yes" men and women that agree with them on the issues. As evidenced by their move in the Schiavo case, the President & Congress don't give two hoots about the Constitution.

It's called Checks and Balances. Each branch is EQUAL to each other. If we really had a "rouge" branch it's the constitutional duty of the other branches to do whatever legal to correct them. None is superior to the others. The people being blocked from their appointments are not "yes" men. They are proven Judges that don't make rules up as they go. BTW, take a look at the votes in congress about the Schiavo case, it was a bi-partisan effort.

Originally posted by Moon Puppy
It's called Checks and Balances. Each branch is EQUAL to each other. If we really had a "rouge" branch it's the constitutional duty of the other branches to do whatever legal to correct them. None is superior to the others. The people being blocked from their appointments are not "yes" men. They are proven Judges that don't make rules up as they go. BTW, take a look at the votes in congress about the Schiavo case, it was a bi-partisan effort.

That is precisely what was problematic with this bill--it was two branches attempting to be superior by directing the judiciary how to rule.

It wasn't much of a bi-partisan effort. It was passed in the Senate was a voice vote with only 3 Republican Senators present--Frist & Mel Martinez voted for the bill, & John Warner against. In the House, only half of them showed up, and it passed 203-58, with the Dems voting 47 for to 53 against.

The nominees that Bush has put forth (and re-put forth) are not qualified. They are certifiable lunatics that not only disregard the Constitution, but have records that are an abomination and demonstrate poor judgement--even racism and bigotry. These people shouldn't even be judges (and some of them aren't--William Myers was a lobbyist and the chief council for the Department of the Interior--how this qualifies him to be a U.S. Appeals Court judge, I have no idea....) Just look at some of them...

William Haynes--architect of the detention policies in the war on terror; advocates suspension of constitutional rights of U.S. citizens accused of terrorists acts; argues that in times of war, the executive branch is not subject to ANY rule of law

Terrence Boyle--has had a highest percentage of decisions overruled by higher courts--120--because of errors in judgement, mistakes, and simple incompetance; ruled in a North Carolina employment case that the federal government should "respect discrimination"; attempts to exempt state agencies from federal anti-discrimination laws, including an Americans with Disabilities Act case in which he suggested that working is “not a major life activity” warranting protection under the ADA; fought against extending anti-discrimination laws to women because he stated that is is against the states "culture"

William Myers-- has never been a judge; has been a lobbyist for anti-environmental entities his entire career until 2001 when he was appointed the chief lawyer for the Dept. of the Interior by Pres. Bush; said the Clean Water Act is "regulatory excess"; said Clear Air Act "invades the province of the states"; argued before the Supreme Court that the Clean Water Act & Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional; called the California Desert Protection Act, which created Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park, and the Mojave National Preserve, an act of "legislative hubris"; wrote that federal environmental law is similar to "King George's tyrannical rule over the colonies", and that it is "fueling a modern-day revolution" in the West.

William Pryor, Jr---believes that it is illegal for homosexuals to have consensual sex in the privacy in their own home and wants to reinstate the "Homosexual Conduct Law" which criminalizes such conduct; disagreed with a ruling that admitted women to the Virginia Military Institute;
as the Atty General of Alabama took money from Phillip Morris & fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit for years, costing the people of Alabama billions for their healthcare system as a result; recently, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, rejected Pryor’s argument that the states should be immune from lawsuits for damages brought by state employees for violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act; believes that it is okay for states to have different interpretations of the Bill of Rights; argued against Constitutional protection for individuals as per age discrimination, gay rights, & school prayer.; defended Alabama’s practice of handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post in a case in which an inmate alleged he was left in the hot sun for seven hours without water or bathroom breaks. The Court rejected Pryor’s argument, holding that “the use of the hitching post under these circumstances violated ‘the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment, [which] is nothing less than the dignity of man.’” Pryor decried the ruling, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in calling the decision a case of the majority applying “its own subjective views on appropriate methods of prison discipline.”

Priscilla Owen--Enron's political action committee gave Owen $8,600 for her successful Supreme Court bid in 1994. Two years later, Owen wrote the majority opinion that reversed a lower court order and reduced Enron's school taxes by $15 million. Since 1993, Enron contributed $134,058 — more than any other corporation — to Owen and other members of the Texas Supreme Court. A study by Texans for Public Justice found that the court ruled in Enron's favor in five out of six cases involving the company since 1993; Also, consistently rules for business over individuals and against women's rights/abortion.

Janice Brown--called the New Deal a "Socialist revolution", was the first California Supreme Court Justice to receive an unqualified rating from the state bar and still be nominated by a governor. Three-fourths of state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position. Complaints filed by her peers called her "insensitive to established legal precedent…and lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views."; is a member of/participates in many ultra-right wing special interest clubs, such as the Liberty Fund & the John M. Olin foundation, which presents a serious conflict of interest for anyone that is a member of the judiciary; consistently rules in favor of special interests

Originally posted by Herman
So you're gonna let what this one guy said keep you from voting in Republicans for the rest of your life? Don't close your mind and let the actions of one represent the whole Republican party.

Well, this is the attitude of most of the Republican party. If you don't agree, then you can't be a Christian. Or another example: if you disagree with the war in Iraq, you are unpatriotic.

Also, the Republican party no longer stands for limited government and individual freedom.

I certainly wouldn't want to be a judge that had anything to do with creating or upholding Roe v. Wade on judgment day.

You forgot to mention Skulls, Masons and Trilateralist.

That's excackly what a bill is, it's the Leg, and Exe branch of government telling the Judical what a law is. There was nothing in the Schiavo bll telling the judges what to rule but to look at the discovery facts are, which they didn't do.

Schiavo bill at Findlaw

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

Show me in that law where any branch of government is telling the other what to RULE?

Originally posted by Moon PuppyThat's excackly what a bill is, it's the Leg, and Exe branch of government telling the Judical what a law is. There was nothing in the Schiavo bll telling the judges what to rule but to look at the discovery facts are, which they didn't do.

The judiciary is more capable of determining the law than Congress or the President. Congress had no right to intervene in ongoing court proceedings. In creating this bill, the executive and legislative branches ordered the 11th Circuit Court to reverse its ruling to not hear the case. That is a clear violation of separation of powers.

The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

Also, the legislative and executive branch forced jurisdiction in this particular court--the 11th Circuit Court, whereas before this court had said that it did not have jurisdiction--again telling the court how to rule.

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

Furthermore, Congress had the hubris to direct the court on a course of action. This would be akin to the courts ruling that Congress must write certain legislation.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

In creating this bill, Congress forced the 11th Circuit Court to reconsider the Schindler's petition, which had been previously dismissed. Also, in forcing the bill to the a Federal Court, the procedure nullified prior state court rulings--for no other grounds other than that Congress and the Executive branch disagreed with them.

Fortunately, the judiciary is not yet saturated with Bush appointees that have demonstrated that they make decisions to please their patrons, not to serve the law. Had someone like William Pryor, Janice Brown, Priscilla Owen, or William Myers been on the 11th Circuit court, the outcome might have been different--setting a dangerous precedent where Congress can override court decisions that disagree with Republican party interests.

The judiciary is more capable of determining the law than Congress or the President.

I'm going to let that statement just sit here and fester a bit...

You might want to do some reading up on who makes laws and who upholds laws.

Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Moon Puppy]

Good idea! I always love reading the Constitution...

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 1 establishes the court system, with Congress designating and creating the system of federal and state courts. The system we have today was created initially by the Judiciary Act of 1789, although there have been some changes since then (the Judiciary Act of 1801, 1891 etc). Thus was created the Supreme Court, the District Courts, and appellate courts (Article III courts.)

The Diminution of salary, or compensation clause, was put in place as further insurance that the judiciary could not be penalized by the Executive and Legislative branches because of their decisionmaking--although raises have been repealed in the context of wage halts and roll-backs for all federal employees.

But the most important part of this section is the phrase "judicial power." This bestows the judiciary with the authority to make independent decisions on the interpretation of the law. Findlaw does a much better job of analyzing the meaning of this phrase...

Judicial power is the power ''of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.'' It is ''the right to determine actual controversies arising between diverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.'' Although the terms ''judicial power'' and ''jurisdiction'' are frequently used interchangeably and jurisdiction is defined as the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit or as the ''power to entertain the suit, consider the merits and render a binding decision thereon,'' the cases and commentary support, indeed require, a distinction between the two concepts. Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to exercise judicial power in a specific case and is, of course, a prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power, which is the totality of powers a court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears and decides a case.

Judicial power confers on federal courts the power to decide a case, to render a judgment conclusively resolving a case. Judicial power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, and Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter final judgments of Article III courts.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

And how about the phrase "shall be vested"? This is particularly important because it establishes that the federal courts have limited jurisdiction and the burden falls upon the litigants to establish that jurisdiction exists. In the Schiavo case, the litigants DID NOT establish jurisdiction to the satisfaction of the court. However, Congress stepped in and reinterpreted the law--not their job.

Also from Findlaw....

The distinction between judicial power and jurisdiction is especially pertinent to the meaning of the words ''shall be vested'' in Sec. 1. Whereas all the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts created by Congress, neither has ever been vested with all the jurisdiction which could be granted and, Justice Story to the contrary, the Constitution has not been read to mandate Congress to confer the entire jurisdiction it might. Thus, except for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which flows directly from the Constitution, two prerequisites to jurisdiction must be present: first, the Constitution must have given the courts the capacity to receive it, and, second, an act of Congress must have conferred it. The fact that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction means that litigants in them must affirmatively establish that jurisdiction exists and may not confer nonexistent jurisdiction by consent or conduct.

Also critical to the ability of the judiciary to exert power is the finality of judgement as an attribute of judicial power. As per Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp.,

''If the President may completely disregard the judgment of the court, it would be only because it is one the courts were not authorized to render. Judgments within the powers vested in courts by the Judiciary Article of the Constitution may not lawfully be revised, overturned or refused faith and credit by another Department of Government."

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

If anything clearly illustrates how the executive and legislative branches attempted to overstep their bounds with the Schiavo bill, Article III, Section I does in plain English. Thanks for bringing it up.

(I don't appreciate your taking my words out of context, BTW. I clearly didn't mean what you implied....)