Damn Judicial Activists

By -
Tuesday, April 12, 2005 (SF Chronicle)Conservatives ponder judicial impeachmentDana Milbank, Washington Post Washington -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is a fairlyaccomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- andperhaps a few more bodyguards. Conservative leaders meeting in Washington on Friday for a discussion of"Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reaganappointee, should be impeached, or worse. Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinionforbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground ofimpeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered for a conferenceon "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy hadnot met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congressought to talk about impeachment." Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering thatKennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in hisopinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist,satanic principles drawn from foreign law." Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the SupremeCourt comes from Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. "He had a slogan, and itworked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, noproblem,' " Vieira said. The full Stalin quote is: "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme. But then, theseare scary times for the judiciary. A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago wereslain in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request fromCongress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader TomDeLay, R-Texas, said that "the time will come for the men responsible forthis to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, mused abouthow a perception that judges are making political decisions could leadpeople to "engage in violence." The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversyby a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for ConstitutionalRestoration. Former Rep. William Dannemeyer, an Orange County Republican who spokeafter Schlafly, said the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or thefederal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists." Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association,then told the crowd that he would block judicial power by abolishing theconcept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacatecourt decisions and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems tohave replaced Justice David Souter as the target of conservative ire. "Ifabout 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would beretiring," he said. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright 2005 SF Chronicle

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anger Management

By -
Image
   Isn't it interesting that Religion and Politics are taboo topics in polite company?  These are very important to many people, but discussing them only seems to provoke anger in most people.  The exception seems to be that people of similar opinions can discuss with one another how much they hate, desipise, and laugh at those of different beliefs.   Apparently, religions and politics are not subjects that most people desire to consider in a calm, cool, rational manner.  Rather, for most people, religion and politics are emotional topics.  They are the subject of Faith.  People have faith in their religion.  More surprisingly, (at least to me) they have Faith in their politics.  Faith and Reason are like oil and water; they do not mix.   I am not restricting my comments to stupid people or any particular party.  My observation seems true to me of very intelligent members of various parties (although there does seems to be a tendency to judge members of parties to which you do not
Read more

Victory in Fallujah

By -
_____________________ by Ralph Peters New York Post November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists. Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts. The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday. On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis
Read more

War on Terror

By -
Image
by Bob Clasen Currently, the Administration is trying to wage a War on Terror. But Terror is not an entity. It is a method of warfare, like automatic weapons, or aircraft. One cannot wage war against a technique or technology. I suggest that what is needed is not more soldiers to be sent to Iraq, but greater clarity of thought. Who, exactly, is our enemy? It would appear that one of America's enemies is Fundamentalist Islam. Why is Fundamentalist Islam our enemy? Because Fundamentalist Islam defines unbelievers as infidel and urges its members to wage war against them. This is the doctrine of jihad. The problem is not with extremisist who hijacked a peaceful religion. The problem is the doctrine of Jihad, or Holy War is found throughout the Koran. This doctrine can be re-interpreted by modern liberal types as a psychological warfare against one's own sins, but that is not how many people throughout history have interpreted it. Anyone who is given to literal interpret
Read more