Too bad!
Its really too bad that the first amendment does not read, "The US Supreme Court shall make no law...". This would possibley have stopped the ruling the court released today regarding having the Ten Commandments on display in a courthouse.
For those who have no knowledge of the first amendment besides the ACLU propaganda, here is a word for word copy:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For those who do not understand this antiquated document, I will translate it. Congress may not make laws regarding religion. They may not make a law supporting either side. This has absolutely nothing that would seem to prohibit a government official from supporting a religion, or even having religious symbols in a government building. Essentially, this has absolutely nothing to do with what the Supreme Court has ruled on. If anything, it violates the second clause, by removing a persons ability to freely excercise their religion.
The third through fifth parts are completely unrelated, only dealing with freedom of expression, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to complain to the government, essentially.
The point I am getting at here is that the supreme court is basing their ruling on their own opinions, and completely ignoring the actual law. This is exactly the same thing that the ACLU does, so it really just shows how much power they have over our court system.
The only thing that does not completely upset me about this is that it was a 5-4 decision, meaning there are at least 4 judges who care about following the letter and spirit of the law. At least all of the judges have to retire sometime.
For those who have no knowledge of the first amendment besides the ACLU propaganda, here is a word for word copy:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For those who do not understand this antiquated document, I will translate it. Congress may not make laws regarding religion. They may not make a law supporting either side. This has absolutely nothing that would seem to prohibit a government official from supporting a religion, or even having religious symbols in a government building. Essentially, this has absolutely nothing to do with what the Supreme Court has ruled on. If anything, it violates the second clause, by removing a persons ability to freely excercise their religion.
The third through fifth parts are completely unrelated, only dealing with freedom of expression, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to complain to the government, essentially.
The point I am getting at here is that the supreme court is basing their ruling on their own opinions, and completely ignoring the actual law. This is exactly the same thing that the ACLU does, so it really just shows how much power they have over our court system.
The only thing that does not completely upset me about this is that it was a 5-4 decision, meaning there are at least 4 judges who care about following the letter and spirit of the law. At least all of the judges have to retire sometime.
posted by Brad Green at 10:27 AM
4 Comments:
Now that there is a retirement, pray hard the right person gets in there!
Nice site.
Blog on...
Yeah, one retirement confirmed, and another soon. I think the Republicans should invoke the "nucular" option and just stick two sane people in there before we get more crazies who dont know how to read. Thats just me, though it really is an opportunity to get better people into the court.
Brad, are you saying that Sandra Day O'Connor is insane and does not know how to read? Shame on you. Are you aware that she finished third in her class at Stanford Law School?
Misguided people can be smart. I dont question her "reading" abilities, just her skills in interpretation. Just because a person can read, it doesn't mean they know what the document says.
At my school we read a book by C.S. Lewis called "That Hideous Strength". On the surface this book has a basic plot. An organization tries to essentially take over the world, and then through the work of some of the characters, as well as some higher entities, they are defeated. This however, is not the intent of the book. C.S. Lewis doesn't write books to be good reading material. It is philosophy that displays his beliefs on the true end of man, the Tao (Do not even ask me to explain that quickly), and some of his other beliefs. Now, I dont want to assert that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are any where near that complicated, as I am sure they are not. What I have to argue is that the Supreme Court judges, regardless of their academic achievements, do not always care what the documents are trying to say.
The position of a Supreme Court judge is a very interesting thing to discuss. Their purpose (or stated purpose) is to make decisions regarding the constitutionality of cases that have been appealed from lower courts. In my opinion (which I do not hold humbly), the position of a Supreme Court justice should rarely be disputed if you have a good candidate. The reason there is always a huge fuss around appointments is that people want to make sure that when a justice makes an unconstitutional decision, they make the decision in thier favor.
As an example of this, look at the "controversy" over John Roberts. His record is pretty near spotless. He seems to make his decisions based on the law, not his own opinion, as evidenced by events such as the incident with the young girl caught with food on a subway. They argued that she was too young, and officers had no right to arrest her. Regardless of whether he believed the offense should have been arrestable, he had to rule that because it is a violation of law to eat on the train, the officers had every right to arrest her.
Critics of John Roberts argue that he has made comments that show he leans to the right, but personally, I dont care if he leans left, right, or sideways, as long as he makes decisions based on law, and not his own opinion. The reason that I generally will support Republican candidates is that I know that when they do inevitably make decisions based on opinion, they do make the decision I would agree with.
I promise that I would gladly support any Democratic candidate for this position that had a judicial record like Roberts. If they rule by law, they gain my support.
The reason I make such rash comments regarding current Supreme Court Justices is that I can clearly see that many of them are not ruling based on law, but rather by their own opinions, some Republican judges included.
I also must say I believe that I generally support Republicans because they are more likely to support the constitution, as I believe many core Republican beliefs are in accordance with what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually say.
And no, I was not aware where she was in her class at Stanford, and frankly, it makes no difference to me. A 3 year class on the meaning of "Constitutionality" would probably make a street bum better prepared to rule than the many years they spend in Law School. Law School is an inevitable consequence of having Supreme Court judges that have been regular judges in the past, as that position actually does require "Law School".
Post a Comment
<< Home