Who Judges The Judges?

How about the persons we elect?

Say.....the President?



1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling

Exactly as it should be!



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ā€˜judicial review,ā€™ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.ā€œIf the framersā€”the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitutionā€”had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.ā€ Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ā€˜Brutus,ā€™ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

ā€œā€¦they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.ā€
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm



Ask the question!

Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.

Federal Judges can be impeached by the US Senate
 
How about the persons we elect?

Say.....the President?



1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling

Exactly as it should be!



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ā€˜judicial review,ā€™ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.ā€œIf the framersā€”the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitutionā€”had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.ā€ Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ā€˜Brutus,ā€™ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

ā€œā€¦they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.ā€
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm



Ask the question!

Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.

Federal Judges can be impeached by the US Senate



What does this have to do with my premise: there is no mandate that their pronouncements must be obeyed?
 
How about the persons we elect?

Say.....the President?



1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling

Exactly as it should be!



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ā€˜judicial review,ā€™ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.ā€œIf the framersā€”the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitutionā€”had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.ā€ Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ā€˜Brutus,ā€™ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

ā€œā€¦they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.ā€
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm



Ask the question!

Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.

Federal Judges can be impeached by the US Senate



What does this have to do with my premise: there is no mandate that their pronouncements must be obeyed?


Law is a matter of persuasion and pronouncements can be appealed.
 
How about the persons we elect?

Say.....the President?



1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling

Exactly as it should be!



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ā€˜judicial review,ā€™ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.ā€œIf the framersā€”the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitutionā€”had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.ā€ Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ā€˜Brutus,ā€™ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

ā€œā€¦they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.ā€
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm



Ask the question!

Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.

Federal Judges can be impeached by the US Senate



What does this have to do with my premise: there is no mandate that their pronouncements must be obeyed?


Law is a matter of persuasion and pronouncements can be appealed.



What does that have to do with this?


1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.
 
How about the persons we elect?

Say.....the President?



1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling

Exactly as it should be!



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ā€˜judicial review,ā€™ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.ā€œIf the framersā€”the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitutionā€”had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.ā€ Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ā€˜Brutus,ā€™ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

ā€œā€¦they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.ā€
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm



Ask the question!

Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.

Federal Judges can be impeached by the US Senate



What does this have to do with my premise: there is no mandate that their pronouncements must be obeyed?


Law is a matter of persuasion and pronouncements can be appealed.



What does that have to do with this?


1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.


LIAR.

Read Marbury vs Madison-Sup Ct has final say on what the Cons says
 
How about the persons we elect?

Say.....the President?



1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. "Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling"
Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court ruling

Exactly as it should be!



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ā€˜judicial review,ā€™ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.ā€œIf the framersā€”the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitutionā€”had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.ā€ Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ā€˜Brutus,ā€™ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

ā€œā€¦they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.ā€
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm



Ask the question!

Unless you already know that 50-80 million illegal aliens already reside in America.

Federal Judges can be impeached by the US Senate



What does this have to do with my premise: there is no mandate that their pronouncements must be obeyed?


Law is a matter of persuasion and pronouncements can be appealed.



What does that have to do with this?


1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.


LIAR.

Read Marbury vs Madison-Sup Ct has final say on what the Cons says


I never lie.

But you do....unless you can quote from the law of the land, the Constitution, where it say that courts have the final say over the executive or the legislative branch.


Or....maybe you are simply an imbecile.



1. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2. Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
See "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman


3. Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes) This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government. "He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." Gutzman, Op. Cit.

4. The real problem of the judiciary is that judges are humans, individuals who, more often than not, have a need and desire to impose their views.


5. For Jefferson, judges were there simply to apply the clear and original understanding of the Constitution.


For John Marshall, and others, such as Justice Joseph Story, judges should "see" beyond the written law and use their superior judgment to influence outcomes.


A judge or Justice who cannot show that a decision is tied to the Constitution, should be summarily dismissed.
The basis for said dismissal would be that he or she doesn't understand their job.






Did I just shut you up?
 

Forum List

Back
Top