'We Don't Need No Stinkin' Judges....'

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
When one looks at the almost limitless power of judges, and the courts, today, one must wonder at what the thinking of the Founders was.

In truth, it was not the Founders who made the courts what they are today: it was Progressives of the early 20th century.





1. When the Constitution was written, the battle was largely between the folks who wanted a hugely powerful central government, the nationalists, and those who wanted the states to retain the sovereignty and power they had as separate entities, the federalists.

2. In the short-term, the federalists won the day.
For example, the judiciary article of the Constitution did not include giving federal courts the power to hear any cases that Congress wanted them to, as Hamilton and Madison wished, i.e., "those affecting the national peace and harmony."

3. The Constitution did not require that there be any federal trial courts at all. " 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...." Article III, US Constitution.

4. In further restricting the power of federal courts, the Constitution listed the kinds of cases Congress can authorize said courts to decide:
" The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Article III, section two. Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





5. Let's go over that again:
...rather than having federal courts with the power to decide any kinds of cases, the document ratified by the people created a federal judiciary which left most judicial power to the state governments.

a. That would include flag burning, abortion, state government recognition of religion, e.g., public prayer, and homosexual marriage. State courts....not federal.
Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," p.26-28.

Federalists who voted to ratify the Constitution were very clear on this issue.





6. It was when Progressives, such as Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell persuaded law schools to stop respecting the actual text of the Constitution, and institute the 'case law' method, that judges were able to impose their whims, caprices and worldviews in place of the Founders.

a. Progressives "Roscoe Pound and others changed the view of the law. Pound firmly believed that the implementation of the principles of the taught legal tradition by wise common-law judges resulted in substantive change, which reflected changes in society. As the interpreters of the common law, judges had a special duty to consider the practical effects of their decisions and to strive to ensure that judging facilitated rather than hindered societal growth.”
Roscoe Pound legal definition of Roscoe Pound. Roscoe Pound synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

b. “What was evident in his first published book in law, however, was his deep indebtedness to German modes of thinking: law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”… the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
roscoe pound and jurisprudence and 1903 and nebraska and harvard law school

c. He was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roscoe Pound: Biography from Answers.com







The people of the 1760's and 1770's who advocated a national judiciary of 'all cases whatsoever' were not called Progressives at the time...they were called Tories or monarchists. They lost.

The Patriots favored home rule and the right of states to govern themselves via elected representatives, they won the Revolution. They ratified the Constitution. Gutzman, Op. Cit.
 
Go whine at Marshall, Taney, Warren, and Roberts and their influence on the courts.
 
Go whine at Marshall, Taney, Warren, and Roberts and their influence on the courts.




This is the kind of post that solidifies your reputation as being a less-than-truthful member of the community.




How does an intellectual exposition qualify as 'whining'?

Your use of the term seems, rather, an inability to actually confront the thesis.


1. Is it not true what I said about the Constitution?

2. ...and the restrictions on the judiciary?

3. And the damage done by Progressives Pound and Langdell...both of whom, I'm certain, are new to you.

4. And the importance of judicial overreach....meaning that they changed the Constitution without using the amendment process.....

...clearly illegal, and the reason for the title....






Seems that I've run circles around you......again.

And therein the value of education.
Bet you feel left out......
 
In today's liberal PC America we are ruled by the tyranny of the lefty Judges and Courts not the Constitution. . :doubt:



And they make no secret of it!


Leftist judges pretend they see some meaning in the 'penumbra' but don't even attempt to base decisions on the language of the Constitution.

"For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi


Nor do they give the respect due the only document ever....ever....agreed to by the ratifiers by using the only approved method of altering the Constitution, the amendment process.


Disheartening what the Leftists have done to America.
 
The Constitution is a Dead Letter...it is no longer the law of the land...and hasn't been for a long time. It is ignored or bastardized by government and a good portion of the people are fine with this.

America is ruled by the whims of the elites, including judges who can do as they wish, just as the Potus does.

Couple this with the enormous power (military and otherwise) and wealth (confiscated at the point of gun), which the central government now possesses, and you have a disaster in process.

History SHOUTS to us, "unlimited government is ALWAYS detrimental for the people." Is anyone listening?

Irony: A nation founded on limited government and individual liberty, which fought and won a war of independence against the world's most powerful statist nation, birthed the freest nation the world had ever seen...becomes a centralized police state. We have bequeathed our children a horrendous tyranny...
 
And now that the Obama/Reid axis has effectively silenced the minority in the Senate, we will witness the march of the most radical Leftist judges onto the federal benches.

This was the sort of tyranny that even FDR's Democrat party resisted when they argued against packing the court.

Lenin would be proud of today's Democrats.



I don't see a future for either liberty or for America.
 
And now that the Obama/Reid axis has effectively silenced the minority in the Senate, we will witness the march of the most radical Leftist judges onto the federal benches.

This was the sort of tyranny that even FDR's Democrat party resisted when they argued against packing the court.

Lenin would be proud of today's Democrats.



I don't see a future for either liberty or for America.

Liberals play for keeps, they play hardball and use their power to advance their liberal agenda. Most Republicans are go along to get along, while we get trampled underfoot by the leftist tyranny taking over the country. Establishment Republicans are also part of the problem
 
Go to first new post 'We Don't Need No Stinkin' Judges....'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Spoken like a true lawless anarchist. Probably loves Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas though. It's okay when fascists pack the court, huh b****.
 
Go to first new post 'We Don't Need No Stinkin' Judges....'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Spoken like a true lawless anarchist. Probably loves Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas though. It's okay when fascists pack the court, huh b****.



"a true lawless anarchist"

Well, now.....let's apply our language correctly.

The above would identify a President who ignores the restrictions of the Constitution, and alters laws that have been passed by the Congress.....


Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”



In addition to "a true lawless anarchist" he'd be quite the liar, too...wouldn't he?
 

Forum List

Back
Top