Judicial Supremacy of the Court!

Enough with the judges who want to make law instead of interpret law. I am not impressed with Judge Sotomayor's flippant remark when she referred to "judges making policy". How arrogant and disrespectful of the position of Appellate Court Justice! That's strike one. Her own comments are quotes in the following article Her Majesty Sonia Sotomayor vs. Rule of Law

June 22, 2008
By Richard Miniter

America is losing the War on Terror in the courts.

Since 2002, the total number of prosecutions of terrorists has fallen every year and is now approaching pre-9-11 levels.

The percentage of terror cases that federal prosecutors refused to prosecute has climbed to 90% in 2006, up from 34% in 2002.

Part of the reason: the landmark Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio is now being used to thwart the convictions of individuals linked to al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist outfits. The 1969 domestic free-speech case effectively safeguards suspected terrorists from prosecutions. Sometimes Brandenburg is invoked by defense attorneys; more often it is employed by prosecutors as a reason to decline prosecuting a case against suspected terrorists.

Critics of the war on terror consistently contend that terrorism is a crime that should be combated in the courts, with the full panoply of civil rights for suspected terrorists. Sadly, the Brandenburg precedent-set in a starkly different time-makes it almost impossible for the government to prevail against terrorists, who are caught in planning stages, in the federal courts. If our system of justice is to play a vital role in the war on terror, the Supreme Court should narrow the scope of Brandenburg.

Methodology
While statistical information on terror cases is public, it usually requires a Freedom of Information Act request, followed by months or even years of waiting to obtain the requested information. Even then, the records delivered are often old or incomplete (some important information is classified and not releasable).

The Justice department does not routinely release statistics on terrorist prosecutions. Fortunately two major universities have been quietly tracking the federal government's anti-terrorism efforts. One is the New York University Law School. The other, a far more exhaustive storehouse of federal data, is at Syracuse University. Since 1989, Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), has systematically used the Freedom of Information Act to gather and organize Justice department statistics.

TRAC, a joint program of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and Martin J. Whitman School of Management, is supported by an array of foundations including: the Rockefeller Family Fund, the New York Times Company Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institute, founded by George Soros.

The federal statistics cited in this paper were accessed through TRAC. The analysis and conclusions are my own. In addition, I consulted a number of lawyers who are directly involved in terror cases. Their input was extremely valuable in shaping the research for this paper.

Credit: Right Side News - The Right News for America

Alexander Hamilton wrote FEDERALIST 78

"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

"For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."

Credit: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federal78.htm

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the ratification of treaties.

A LIST OF WHAT THE JUDICIAL SUPREMACISTS HAVE DONE:

1. Censored the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools
2. Removed the Ten Commandments from public buildings and parks
3. Changed the definition of marriage
4. Banned the acknowledgment of God in public schools
5. Imposed taxes
6. Rewritten laws of criminal procedures
7. Dismantled laws that protect internal security
8. Imposed the social experimentation called forced school busing
9. Upheld racial preferences and quotas in hiring and college admissions
10.Outlawed term limits for Members of Congress
11.Rewritten laws on the conduct of elections

Judicial Supremacists have invented so-called rights:
1.The right to abortion
2.The right to same-sex marriage licenses
3.The right to show and publish pornography, even with taxpayers' money
4.The right of illegal aliens to receive taxpayer-paid benefits

Judges have assumed authorities and responsibilities that the Constitution never gave them, and they are doing great harm--to our society, our culture, our institutions, our children, and our right of self-government.

It is We the people's responsibility to let our senators know that they are not doing their job if they continue to allow judges to make LAW. Judges can be impeached by the Legislative branch.

The Judiciary
The duty of the interpretation of the law rests in the Judiciary. The highest court in the United States, above all others, with the final say in the what laws are Constitutional and which aren't, is the Supreme Court.

There is actually very little said in the Constitution about the Supreme Court or any of the courts. Article 3 is the shortest of the first three articles, and only the first two of the three sections have anything to do with the structure of the Judiciary. The Chief Justice is only mentioned in Article 2, concerning presidential impeachment. Judges have no Constitutionally mandated age, residency, or citizenship requirements.

Judges appointed to the bench under Article 3 courts serve their terms for as long as they wish, while in "good Behavior." Judges can be impeached by the Legislative branch.

Currently, there are nine justices of the Supreme Court. Since the Constitution does not specify the number, it has fluctuated, from as few as five to as many as ten. The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court, meaning that cases normally only come to the Court by way of appeal after appeal of the losing party. The Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction of a few types of cases, spelled out in Section 2.

The Constitution also specifies that there will be courts inferior to the Supreme Court. These courts are federal in scope and are separate from similar court setups in each state. This dual-scope judicial system is quite uncommon through other governments in the world, but reflects the historical power of the states.

In addition the Article 3 courts, there are special Article 1 courts which help carry out the duties of the Legislative branch, such as bankruptcy courts and military courts of appeal. Judges serving in Article 1 courts do not serve for life, but have set terms (such as 14 years for bankruptcy court, and 15 for military appeals court).

The current members of the Supreme Court are as follows, along with their year of appointment and president who appointed them:

John Roberts (chief) (2005, Bush)
John Paul Stevens (1975, Ford)
Antonin Scalia (1986, Reagan)
Anthony Kennedy (1988, Reagan)
David Souter (1990, Bush)
Clarence Thomas (1991, Bush)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993, Clinton)
Stephen Breyer (1994, Clinton)
Samuel Alito (2006, Bush)
Sonia Sotomayor (2009, Obama)
Elena Kagan (2010, Obama)
Credit: USConstitution

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. The document shown here bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898.

"A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

Marbury vs. Madison

OUR EVOLVING CONSTITUTION

Imagine that you live in Plum Creek, a fictitious, medium size town somewhere in the United States. It has two high schools, East High and West High. The rivalry between the two schools' football teams has been a major feature of local culture for decades. Last year, a boy living next door to your home was playing on the West High team. He invited you to attend the season finale, the game against East High. It began with the usual rules; however, East High couldn't seem to move the ball. The team had big, strong players but they were slow, and they had no passing game.
The referees reacted by announcing some rule changes. From now on, a team only needed thirty-nine and one half inches for a first down. And it had five attempts rather than four, but only if it didn't try a pass play. Any forward pass would end a series of downs.

People sitting near you in the stands were quite upset about the changes. They were aware that two of the three referees were uncles, and the third a next door neighbor, of East High players. A committee elected by all the high school coaches in the state had hired the referees. But they had long term contracts, and it was almost impossible to get rid of one who was biased, corrupt, or incompetent.

Many years ago, the coaches committee had also written a rule book, and all the coaches had then voted to adopt it. It stated that no rule could be changed without the written approval of three-fourths of the coaches. It also said, "A first down requires an advance of ten yards or more in no more than four plays." It didn't say anything about special limits on pass plays.

When irate fans complained about the clearly fraudulent rule changes, the referees brushed them off. "You don't understand the rule book," they said, "it's a living document which evolves to meet the needs of changing times. And we have the authority to guide that evolution."

You have just read a rough description of modern U. S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.

CREDIT: D.J. CONNOLLY - PLEASE CHECK OUT HIS SITE:
"http://ttokarnak.home.att.net/Evolution.html

From the Christian Science Monitor (August 6, 2010)

President Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court won Senate approval on Thursday, his second appointment to the court that decides abortion, death penalty and other contentious cases. The Democratic-led Senate voted largely along party lines, 63-37, to confirm the former Harvard Law School dean as the fourth female justice in U.S. history and the 112th high court member.Kagan was Obama's solicitor general, arguing government cases before the Supreme Court, when he named her in May as his choice to replace the retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

Read on Elena Kagan

For your patriot articles, history, flags, t-shirts, news. This is a great site.

Patriot Post