Judges Have Too Much Power

[protectionist]

Funny that no one has raised the roof over the way judges have become independent rulers of us, able to override legislative activity put in place by legislators voted in by the public, as well as referendums and initiatives, supported by millions of citizens.

In the early 90s, in California, a million citizens signed a petition to put Proposition 187 on the ballot. This was to end welfare benefits to illegal aliens (people who criminally broke into our country, broke our laws, and didn't belong here). 59% of California voters supported Prop 187. But the will of the people went down in flames, when ONE federal judge (selected by the open borders crowd), ruled against it, and annulled the people's victory.

In a brand new case, the highly popular ban on same-sex marriage ( 75 percent of voters approved it in 2004 as an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution) went down to defeat, when ONE JUDGE, Judge Cris Piazza, overturned the ban law. Piazza's reason for overturning the will of the people is contradictory, if not, mind boggling. He said >> "The court is not unmindful of the criticism that judges should not be super legislators. "However, the issue at hand is the fundamental right to marry being denied to an unpopular minority. Our judiciary has failed such groups in the past."

It would hardly be much different if Piazza has said >> "Ahh, I think I feel like ruling against it. I'm not in the mood for it. " (without the slightest thought of the 2.2 Million people who put the law in place).

Piazza was right the first time. Judges should not be super legislators. He should have stuck with that. Instead, he obliterated the democratic process, rendered the entire state legislature to non-existence, and thwarted the wishes of 75% of the Arkansas people. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

So there it is. Any time any activist group feels strong enough about a certain issue, no matter that the people spoke and their will became law, all the law rustlers have to do to turn things THEIR way (or the highway), is to go JUDGE-SHOPPING, and when they've got the judge they like, file suit. Then, they calmly sit back and wait for the law that millions of people worked hard to establish, to disappear with one stroke of ONE JUDGE's little pen.

Kinda makes you feel like you're dreaming all this, but nope, this is America, 2014.

Don'tcha think somebody could've fixed all this since Prop 187, after more than 20 years have passed ?

 

[DriftingSand]

The founders would be livid at the way Federal Judges (in particular) have become little King Georges. When States pass state laws within the bounds of both Federal and State Constitutions then Federal Judges need to keep their traps shut. If there is an issue with a law's constitutionality then the issue should be brought to a panel for review or taken to the Supreme Court (not that I trust that group of leftists these days).

 

[protectionist]

The founders would be livid at the way Federal Judges (in particular) have become little King Georges. When States pass state laws within the bounds of both Federal and State Constitutions then Federal Judges need to keep their traps shut. If there is an issue with a law's constitutionality then the issue should be brought to a panel for review or taken to the Supreme Court (not that I trust that group of leftists these days).

I was in full agreement with you up until that SCOTUS remark. While they gave a pass to gay rights last year (boo!), this year, they squashed affirmative action (Yay!), and by a 6-2 vote, so we should give them credit for that.

As for the federal judges, I think the whole concept of allowing ONE MAN (ex Judge Cris Piazza) to stomp out the will of 2.2 million people, and their elected representitives, needs to be overhauled (ie. tossed in the trash)

 

[DriftingSand]

The founders would be livid at the way Federal Judges (in particular) have become little King Georges. When States pass state laws within the bounds of both Federal and State Constitutions then Federal Judges need to keep their traps shut. If there is an issue with a law's constitutionality then the issue should be brought to a panel for review or taken to the Supreme Court (not that I trust that group of leftists these days).

I was in full agreement with you up until that SCOTUS remark. While they gave a pass to gay rights last year (boo!), this year, they squashed affirmative action (Yay!), and by a 6-2 vote, so we should give them credit for that.

As for the federal judges, I think the whole concept of allowing ONE MAN (ex Judge Cris Piazza) to stomp out the will of 2.2 million people, and their elected representitives, needs to be overhauled (ie. tossed in the trash)

I'm glad the SCOTUS did the right thing in the affirmative action case and I believe they favored gun rights in recent years as well but I will always be weary of a court that would "legalize" abortion (not that most of the current members had much to do with that very poor decision). I'm also weary of the Court now that they have 2 Obama appointees. If he's able to appoint any more then we may be in worse trouble than we are now.

 

[HackinJack]

o.k.

 

[protectionist]

The founders would be livid at the way Federal Judges (in particular) have become little King Georges. When States pass state laws within the bounds of both Federal and State Constitutions then Federal Judges need to keep their traps shut. If there is an issue with a law's constitutionality then the issue should be brought to a panel for review or taken to the Supreme Court (not that I trust that group of leftists these days).

I was in full agreement with you up until that SCOTUS remark. While they gave a pass to gay rights last year (boo!), this year, they squashed affirmative action (Yay!), and by a 6-2 vote, so we should give them credit for that.

As for the federal judges, I think the whole concept of allowing ONE MAN (ex Judge Cris Piazza) to stomp out the will of 2.2 million people, and their elected representitives, needs to be overhauled (ie. tossed in the trash)

I'm glad the SCOTUS did the right thing in the affirmative action case and I believe they favored gun rights in recent years as well but I will always be weary of a court that would "legalize" abortion (not that most of the current members had much to do with that very poor decision). I'm also weary of the Court now that they have 2 Obama appointees. If he's able to appoint any more then we may be in worse trouble than we are now.

I agree with you there. Note how Sotomayer argued vehemently against the 6-2 decision. One can only wonder how many white males where shoved aside to allow here to g3t the first judge position she got (and subsequent ones).
All the more reason why I'm leaning toward a Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

 

[longknife]

There are methods of removing judges from office for malfeasance.

Up to state level, most states have recall options or the state bars can withdraw their right to practice law.

At the federal level, impeachment proceedings can be brought.

It's a matter of the people standing up against judges like this and taking action to see them removed.

 

[protectionist]

There are methods of removing judges from office for malfeasance.

Up to state level, most states have recall options or the state bars can withdraw their right to practice law.

At the federal level, impeachment proceedings can be brought.

It's a matter of the people standing up against judges like this and taking action to see them removed.

We can also vote them out of office, or vote against them to begin with. Problem is most people just aren't paying much attention. And news media don't always report these judicial atrocities.

 

[Ahsan558]

Judges has too much and they should use it for fair of the country.

 

[BobPlumb]

Judges need the power to prevent the the mob of the majority from trampling on the rights of the individual. However; the downside to this is that many of our judges suck. What are we to do?

 

[protectionist]

Judges need the power to prevent the the mob of the majority from trampling on the rights of the individual. However; the downside to this is that many of our judges suck. What are we to do?

Make it easier to dump judges who legislate from the bench, and destroy democracy. BTW, the majority are called > the American People (not a "mob").

 

[BobPlumb]

Judges need the power to prevent the the mob of the majority from trampling on the rights of the individual. However; the downside to this is that many of our judges suck. What are we to do?

Make it easier to dump judges who legislate from the bench, and destroy democracy. BTW, the majority are called > the American People (not a "mob").

And there have been plenty of cases when American people have been a mob. There should be a balance between individual rights and majority rule.

BTW, the minority is also called the American People.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a brand new case, the highly popular ban on same-sex marriage ( 75 percent of voters approved it in 2004 as an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution) went down to defeat, when ONE JUDGE, Judge Cris Piazza, overturned the ban law.

Actually not, the Constitution and its case law overturned the ban, having little to do with the judge.

In fact, judges have very little ‘power,’ as they’re compelled to abide by the Constitution. And when they err and fail to abide by that case law, their decisions are overturned by the appellate courts.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures such as Proposition 8 and Utah’s Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.

When judges invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution, they do so as authorized by the Founding Document and its case law, thus safeguarding the civil liberties of all Americans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The founders would be livid at the way Federal Judges (in particular) have become little King Georges. When States pass state laws within the bounds of both Federal and State Constitutions then Federal Judges need to keep their traps shut. If there is an issue with a law's constitutionality then the issue should be brought to a panel for review or taken to the Supreme Court (not that I trust that group of leftists these days).

Federal judges are acting today in a manner consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are methods of removing judges from office for malfeasance.

Up to state level, most states have recall options or the state bars can withdraw their right to practice law.

At the federal level, impeachment proceedings can be brought.

It's a matter of the people standing up against judges like this and taking action to see them removed.

Judges cannot be ‘removed’ solely because they made a ruling consistent with the Constitution and its case law in good faith.

That you and others on the right might disagree with that case law is not grounds for ‘impeachment’ of a judge who followed the law in accordance with Article VI of the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judges need the power to prevent the the mob of the majority from trampling on the rights of the individual. However; the downside to this is that many of our judges suck. What are we to do?

Make it easier to dump judges who legislate from the bench, and destroy democracy. BTW, the majority are called > the American People (not a "mob").

And there have been plenty of cases when American people have been a mob. There should be a balance between individual rights and majority rule.

BTW, the minority is also called the American People.

There is currently a balance, as both the American people (through their elected representatives) and the judiciary are subject to the same Constitutional jurisprudence.

When the American people seek to disobey the Constitution, however, and enact measures offensive to the Constitution, conflict and controversy manifest.

 

[protectionist]

In a brand new case, the highly popular ban on same-sex marriage ( 75 percent of voters approved it in 2004 as an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution) went down to defeat, when ONE JUDGE, Judge Cris Piazza, overturned the ban law.

Actually not, the Constitution and its case law overturned the ban, having little to do with the judge.

In fact, judges have very little ‘power,’ as they’re compelled to abide by the Constitution. And when they err and fail to abide by that case law, their decisions are overturned by the appellate courts.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – measures such as Proposition 8 and Utah’s Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Moreover, the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.

When judges invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution, they do so as authorized by the Founding Document and its case law, thus safeguarding the civil liberties of all Americans.

FALSE! The judge made the decision, overruling the will of 2.2 million people + their elected representitives.

As for your idiotic statement >> "the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties, as civil rights are not subject to majority rule.",

EARTH TO CCJ: Deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties, is done EVERY DAY, in every state of the USA, by legislatures, and law enforcement agencies.
And those who (by majority rule) have been found to be outside of society's standards and rules (called laws), currently reside in big buildings called prisons.

Sure, people have rights, but those are only within the confines that the people, BY MAJORITY RULE, designate.

 

[protectionist]

The founders would be livid at the way Federal Judges (in particular) have become little King Georges. When States pass state laws within the bounds of both Federal and State Constitutions then Federal Judges need to keep their traps shut. If there is an issue with a law's constitutionality then the issue should be brought to a panel for review or taken to the Supreme Court (not that I trust that group of leftists these days).

Federal judges are acting today in a manner consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Welcome to Reality.

 

[protectionist]

There are methods of removing judges from office for malfeasance.

Up to state level, most states have recall options or the state bars can withdraw their right to practice law.

At the federal level, impeachment proceedings can be brought.

It's a matter of the people standing up against judges like this and taking action to see them removed.

Judges cannot be ‘removed’ solely because they made a ruling consistent with the Constitution and its case law in good faith.

That you and others on the right might disagree with that case law is not grounds for ‘impeachment’ of a judge who followed the law in accordance with Article VI of the Constitution.

The fallacy of your statement lies in how you define "consistent with the Constitution and its case law".

Interesting how you refer to Article 6 of the Constitution. I seem to remember you not backing up that very article, when it came to the subject of Islamic supremacist unconstitutionality.

 

[protectionist]

Make it easier to dump judges who legislate from the bench, and destroy democracy. BTW, the majority are called > the American People (not a "mob").

And there have been plenty of cases when American people have been a mob. There should be a balance between individual rights and majority rule.

BTW, the minority is also called the American People.

There is currently a balance, as both the American people (through their elected representatives) and the judiciary are subject to the same Constitutional jurisprudence.

When the American people seek to disobey the Constitution, however, and enact measures offensive to the Constitution, conflict and controversy manifest.

You paint a FALSE picture. In both cases that I mentioned in the OP (Proposition 187 in California and the SSM ban in Arkansas) there is no disobedience of the Constitution or offense aqainst it. You weirdly talk like anything anybody is restricted from doing is a violation of the constitution. That's absurd.

The way you paint this up, anybody ought to be able to do anything, or else their rights would be violated. What a pile of horsefeathers.

Both Proposition 187 and the Arkansas SSM ban are for the purpose of PROTECTION of the people from harm. The constitution does not require that the people be harmed, in order to allow some individual or group to have whatever they want. If it did, we wouldn't have a single jail, prison, or anybody paying a fine. Get real.

As for "balance", allowing ONE MAN to overrule the collective will of 2.2 million people (in the Arkansas case), and all their elected representives, is about as UNbalanced as it gets.