Judges & Tea Party Conservatives

Even local Judges do try to force their will onto people Flanders right or wrong. We had one in a meeting in chambers some years back that wanted me to sign a Quit Claim for property and when I would not put my name on the erroneous document he became very insulant as if that would change my mind.
To PodISHI: Good points.

I’m glad you talked about local judges. Most Americans think about judges in relation to the Supreme Court who are the most corrupt judges of all. The fact is that less than a few thousand Americans have ever been abused personally by Supreme Court Justice; their decisions hide individual abuse because their rulings affect millions, while thousands of local judges abuse the Rights of individual law-abiding Americans ever day.

Orson Welles narrating the open few minutes in this video might interest you if you are not familiar with Kafka’s The Trial:



Yes they do and when it is happening generally the one's that it happening to can't get enough breathing room to do anything about it. I've heard more lame excuses from attorneys over the years than you can shake a stick at. We grew up being fed a line about how good the system is but in fact it is really messed up. Justice should be more than just what you can afford pay for. I mean that in a sense that both judges and attorneys are corrupt or chicken shit or both.
 
Doing nothing is often the best course of action, while doing something about the Nifty Nine can hardly do more harm rather than doing nothing:

June 28, 2015
Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices
By Rick Moran

Blog Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices

Ted Cruz is a Harvard lawyer whose heart in the right place, nevertheless, I am not sure his suggestion will rein in Supreme Court justices —— LAWYERS ALL —— let alone rein in lesser judges —— LAWYERS ALL. The question should be: What is to be done about lawyers? The answer is not easy. Just about everybody in Congress, and in every state legislature, is a lawyer. I suspect the percentage is the same in local governments.

Lawyers are trained to feed on tax dollars; so I cannot envision more than a baker’s dozen even admitting that lawyers are at fault. One major fault is that conservatives and conservatism suffers the most at the hands of lawyers, yet a vast majority of Americans hold conservative political views. Perhaps that is why judges who control the legal profession along with media liberals despise the Tea Party Movement.

Let’s assume Tea Partiers now have enough strength to can give Cruz the Republican party’s nomination, and let’s further assume that the Congress will go along with President Cruz and Tea Party values, it will not change a thing because the federal courts now overrule the Congress. It follows that a simple majority of High Court liberals will overrule a president they disagree with.

My point: Tea Party conservatives have absolutely no say in appointing federal judges. That is not likely to change anytime soon because lawyers will never release their grip on who appoints judges.

With Tea Party conservatives in mind, I’ve edited some comments and thoughts from previous threads that might give Tea Partiers some idea of what they are facing:

It is a widely agreed upon proposition that the federal judiciary in our country is out of control; literally out of control. Federal judges increasingly act as if there are no limits to their authority to not only interpret, but to make and impose law.


A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges
By Tim Dunkin February 19, 2015

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges

Tim Dunkin’s proposed constitutional amendment does not stand a prayer in hell of reining in federal judges so long as the American people separate them from judges in local and state courts.

The article above and two more articles cover abuses by judges that are seldom mentioned by the media. Two articles by Selwyn Duke are most informative. Note that Thomas Jefferson is now under serious attack from the Left:


Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.

That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”

February 20, 2015
Why not one governor is qualified to be president
By Selwyn Duke

Why not one governor is qualified to be president

The second article tells us where Roe v. Wade, homosexual marriage, and socialized medicine —— to name just three desasters —— got started:

Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision -- by the Supreme Court.

February 19, 2015
Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President
By Selwyn Duke

Articles Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President

John Marshall’s court established a judicial priesthood in Marbury v. Madison. A priesthood that is now every bit as totalitarian as ever was any priesthood in history.

I like to think that Thomas Jefferson saw it coming. I also believe that John Marshall was a dirty little moralist who so despised a Constitution that was created without his approval he built a framework for one reason only —— to empower priests in the federal courts. Ayn Rand was surely talking about John Marshall’s intention to give priests the authority to bring back every one of mankind’s horrors and destruction in this country:



Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.

A judge in Washington on Wednesday authorized the “personal ruin” of a florist whose Christian faith prevented her from promoting a same-sex wedding and who was sued by both the state and the homosexual couple.

Judge authorizes 'personal ruin' for Christian florist
Posted By Bob Unruh
On 02/18/2015 @ 8:35 pm

Judge authorizes personal ruin for Christian florist

The things one judge is doing to Barronelle Stutzmanis is only the tip of judicial moral decay. Every case decided by a judge’s personality bypasses the law. The cases I mention are extremely important, but they cannot stem the tidal wave of priests IN GOVERNMENT swamping the country.

Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case
Posted 9 days ago.
By NCC Staff

Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case

XXXXX

ADF: Don’t force cake artist who supports same-sex marriage to speak against her beliefs
Customer filed complaint with Colorado Civil Rights Commission after bakery declined to write objectionable words, symbols on cake
Friday, January 23, 2015
Attorney sound bites: Jeremy Tedesco #1 | Jeremy Tedesco #2

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig - Alliance Defending Freedom

Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:

8th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​

13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

NOTE: Congress passed a vile law —— the ACA. The High Court then circumvented the Constitution in upholding the ACA —— TWICE —— without ever addressing the meaning of involuntary servitude in the XIII Amendment.

One possible ruling in involuntary servitude cases says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists produce with tax dollars.

Another possible ruling says artists can decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but deciding for themselves flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, same-sex marriage and the rest of liberalism’s blah, blah, blah.

A third possible ruling identifies two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of rules for private sector artists.

In every case of involuntary servitude the XIII Amendment was the way to go because it protects every American when religion is not involved.

Liberals wield artistic freedom like a club the same way Communist teachers wield academic freedom every time they want to take a liberty away from everybody else. Defeating liberalism depends upon defeating Socialist priests more than defeating an ideology:


Legal Counsel Jim Campbell added that every artist “must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views.”

Supremes asked to halt 'compelled' lesbian speech
Christian photographer disputes ruling loss of religious freedom is price of citizenship
Published: 11/08/2013 at 4:14 pm
BOB UNRUH

Supremes asked to halt compelled lesbian speech

Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did Nazis judges have the Right to order Picasso to paint their morality rather than paint his own in Guernica?

guernica3.jpg

Liberals always pick the part they like:

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.​

The First Amendment has become meaningless. The government can infringe on anyone’s religious freedom as they will with the homosexual ruling.

The issue is whether or not Socialist priests can order the way Americans must behave? The same issue is at play in the ACA. Can Socialist priests order you to purchase anything? The answer is unquestionably YES. When framed in those words you can clearly see the evil intent behind John Roberts first calling the “forced purchase of healthcare insurance” a tax.

Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake.

The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges at every level get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?

Incidentally, an administrative law judge is a federal judge.


. . . it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.

In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.

January 9, 2014
Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
By Jim Yardley

404 Can t Find Page - American Thinker

I know that Socialist priests can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything is so important to Tea Partiers in the fight for individual liberties and limited government?

Irrespective of the issues, or how the judges get to the bench, the cases the SCOTUS agree to hear will be decided by 5 judges —— activist liberal judges more often than not:

Defending the First Amendment has become a twisted joke. Governor Mike Pence claimed he was defending freedom of religion, while he ran for the tall grass the minute he had to challenge every judge who orders involuntary servitude —— SLAVERY IS THE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. In short: The 8th and 13th Amendments override the First Amendment every time.

Judges imposing forced labor on an individual’s freedom of religion is surely cruel and unusual punishment without using whips and chains.

In plain English, every law that is passed becomes “appropriate legislation” so long as a judge says it is so. Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.

Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.


House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

Hoyer Says Constitution s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

I can only pray that a judge does not single out pepperoni pizza!

Indiana Pizza Shop: We Won’t Serve Gay Weddings
April 1, 2015 9:58 AM

Indiana pizza shop we won t serve gay weddings CBS Cleveland

I was floored when talking heads gave so much coverage to the pizza guy. I wagered that the story would be ignored because there is not an actual pizza case in the court —— at least not YET.

The way media reported the pizza story is annoying to me because media mouths refuse to touch the 8th and the 13th Amendments in those cases that have been in the courts for several years, yet never a word was heard about involuntary servitude. Pizza reportage is no different than the other cases of involuntary servitude before it even gets to court. Happily, Joseph Farah touched on the heart of the matter:


Have you noticed we didn’t have any notable conflicts with non-discrimination laws until we decided to include among the protected groups one that is behavior-based?

XXXXX

. . . the advent of laws and judicial rulings prohibiting discrimination against people based on lifestyle choices and behavior, things got, predictably, a little more complicated.

XXXXX

We are rapidly giving up our individual liberties in favor of collective coercion overseen by state power that is unaccountably lethal.

The problem with 'non-discrimination' laws
Posted By Joseph Farah
On 04/02/2015 @ 7:16 pm

The problem with non-discrimination laws

I have one slight disagreement with Mr. Farah.

Involuntary servitude infested ‘civilization’ since the dawn of time; so it can hardly be called complicated after all of the eons forced labor has been embodied in the law in every Judicial Code of Conduct ever written —— with the single exception of America’s founding documents.

Admittedly, it took a while to abolish the most brutal form of slavery. To be precise, replacing involuntary servitude enforced by a whip was replaced by legislated love. Look at it this way. No priesthood creates freedom from organized religion. Conversely, America’s Socialist priesthood created a slave class; i.e., a parasite class that can only acquire individual liberties from legislated love or not at all.

Finally, Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO.

It is worth repeating Eric Hoffer —— in large font:

THE BASIC TEST OF FREEDOM IS PERHAPS LESS IN WHAT WE ARE FREE TO DO THAN IN WHAT WE ARE FREE NOT TO DO. IT IS THE FREEDOM TO REFRAIN, WITHDRAW AND ABSTAIN WHICH MAKES A TOTALITARIAN REGIME IMPOSSIBLE.

Your scenario requires a strong Tea Party, yet a recent Gallup Poll that support for the Tea Party at an all time low at 19% support. This is supported by the dismal Tea Party showing in the 2014 primaries.
 
That video is ironic. A magistrate claimed god status in "his" courtroom. The people agreed with an editorial in the primary local paper that he was not God their Father or a god their courtroom. The people voted him off the bench and political connections gave him another position as the poor man could not find a job after that. Still though the people he cost both emotionally and financially thousands of dollars each personally were never compensated for the loses he force upon them through the corrupt system he willingly created in his court along with a corrupt attorneys who made deals there or corrupt prosecutors who prosecuted non crimes in the peoples courtroom. When people willingly look away in the face of injustices perpetrated on what they think is 'those people over there' it just gets worse and worse until the system hits a critical breaking point.
 
Your scenario requires a strong Tea Party, yet a recent Gallup Poll that support for the Tea Party at an all time low at 19% support. This is supported by the dismal Tea Party showing in the 2014 primaries.
To kiwiman127: Sad but true. It has a lot to do with media coverage.

Tea Party conservatism still represents a splinter party within the Republican party. On the bright side, a Karl Rove Republican cannot win without conservatives.
 
Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
UPDATE

The issue of involuntary servitude is not addressed:


Court told facts don't support 'anti-gay bias' at Christian bakery
Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/05/2016 @ 8:53 pm

Court told facts don’t support ‘anti-gay bias’ at Christian bakery
 
Yes, Cruz's ignorance of, and contempt for, the rule of law is already well established.

Just because most conservatives are upset that the Constitution prohibits them from denying women and gay Americans their civil rights doesn't justify doing away with the rule of law.
 
Just because most conservatives are upset that the Constitution prohibits them from denying women and gay Americans their civil rights doesn't justify doing away with the rule of law.
To C_Clayton_Jones: You know where you can shove special privileges that parasites call civil rights.
 
8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
13th Amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I have a hunch that the homosexual community will drop their case if Washington State’s high court rules for Barronelle Stutzman. Should it go all the way to the SCOTUS, the decision might go nationwide against the homosexual agenda.

The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review the case against a florist who was penalized for following her Christian faith and refusing to support a “gay wedding” with her artistic talent.

The brief order from the Supreme Court of Washington was signed by Barbara Madsen, the chief justice, and said tersely that the court would “retain this case for hearing and decision.”

The fight involves penalties that the state is imposing on Barronelle Stutzman, a longtime florist who was accused of discrimination when she declined to violate her Christian faith and provide her artistic talents for the same-sex “wedding” being planned by a longtime customer.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is working on court on behalf of Stutzman, explained at issue are the penalties and attorneys’ fees a lower court ordered her to pay “for declining to use her artistic abilities to design custom floral arrangements for a longtime customer’s same-sex ceremony.”

Christian targeted for 'personal destruction' has new hope
Posted By Bob Unruh On 03/06/2016 @ 3:40 pm

Christian targeted for ‘personal destruction’ has new hope

Worse still, upholding the 8th & 13th Amendments would demolish Socialism’s agenda summed up in one sentence:
Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO.
NOTE: Barronelle Stutzman’s case makes Scalia’s replacement extremely important.
 
UPDATE

John Kasich is not one to miss an opportunity. I guess there are more churchgoers than bakers, florists, and photographers:

As our Great Sexual Heresy continues its march onwards and downwards, state governments have forced bakers, wedding planners, florists and other businessmen to service faux weddings. This is unprecedented, as never before were Americans governmentally compelled to participate in events they found morally objectionable. Yet when some project out on our cultural trajectory and say churches one day will be subject to the same coercion, they’re met with laughter; this will never, ever happen, they’re told. Yet this is an illogical and inconsistent position.

Prefacing a statement in opposition to the hapless bakers at a campaign stop a while back, presidential pretender John Kasich opined, “I think, frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them.” That such a statement need be made — and that it was said so lukewarmly — indicates we’ve already taken the first step toward just such coercion. Yet the main point is that the position reflects fuzzy thinking.​

If Bakers Can be Forced to Service Faux Weddings, so Can Churches
By Selwyn Duke
April 3, 2016

If Bakers Can be Forced to Service Faux Weddings, so Can Churches
 
The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a Christian baker who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriage ceremonies. The court’s decision Monday means the previous appellate court ruling against the Christian bakers will stand.​

Christian Baker Forced To Bake Gay Wedding Cakes Or Make No Wedding Cakes At All
Photo of Casey Harper
Casey Harper
8:51 AM 04/26/2016

Christian Baker Forced To Bake Gay Wedding Cakes Or Make No Wedding Cakes At All

Lawyers should fight those cases on involuntary servitude because they will never win based religious freedom:
8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
13th Amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The fact is that nobody in today’s government, including lawyers, will tamper with their authority to order a free people to perform the kind of work they must do, when they will do it, and the reason they must obey.

Basically, judicial priests are replacing individual moral choices with the morality of freaks, perverts, and criminals, wearing black robes.
 
You can make all the cakes you want, and when you hold the service out to the public if your state has PA laws, you are bound by them, bud.
 
You can make all the cakes you want, and when you hold the service out to the public if your state has PA laws, you are bound by them, bud.
To JakeStarkey: ASSHOLE. No law overrides the Constitution let alone a ruling by a judge.

Since you insist on making a fool of yourself, tell us why a bureaucrat placing a gag order on the Kleins is constitutional:


In addition to ruling the Kleins must pay $135,000, Avakian also ordered the former bakery owners to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication … to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote in the final order.

XXXXX

“There are aspects of their beliefs and of this case, including aspects of their religious beliefs about marriage, that if they were to share these things publicly, that the government could punish them, saying that it amounts to the equivalent of advertising their intention to continue engaging in illegal discrimination,” Klukowski said.

“That censors so much protected speech.”

The punishment for violating the order is “notoriously unspecific,” Klukowski added. Because of that, lawyers for the Kleins are treading carefully on what they allow their clients to do and say in public.

XXXXX

In reviewing the appeal, the Oregon Appeal Court will determine whether or not the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ constitutional rights to religious freedom, free speech, and due process.

Oregon Bakers Continue Legal Fight, Challenging ‘Gag Order’
Kelsey Harkness
April 25, 2016

Oregon Bakers Challenge 'Gag Order’
 
Flanders, you are a goof ball. Your interpretation is just that, yours, and no one has to abide by it. Yell and smell all you want, but there it is.
 
Where is the problem? The judge issued a cease and desist order. The business did so. Of their own decision I might add. There is not a cease and desist order written that must be honored if one feels they are correct in their stand. Liberals disrespect court rulings often. Why, the squeaking wheel gets the grease! Something conservatives have yet to learn. Think about it, both the cease and desist order and the Constitution are written on paper and if one can be ignored so can the other.
 
Think about it, both the cease and desist order and the Constitution are written on paper and if one can be ignored so can the other.
To I amso IR: Judges cannot ignore. At least they are not supposed to.
 
Thank you for responding. However, Judges ignore with regularity. It is termed, "honor among thieves". Now were they to "cut the baby in half" there would be compliance with the law. Judges do not have a simple job, and they must decide what they feel is the best course of action. No doubt the judge did that in this case and the business followed his guidance. But they did not have to. Would there have been consequences, yes, but the fact remains, they did not have to, period! Of course that takes resources they probably do not have and the liberals do. The judge knew that and took a legal route out of the mess. But the fact remains, no one person can be issued a valid cease and desist, not when there are personal values at stake involving two different parties involved. President Obama has proven that over and over again and he is still President. Now go ahead Jake, lets hear your two cents worth.
 
Judges do not have a simple job, and they must decide what they feel is the best course of action.
To I amso IR: I do not doubt that judges place themselves above the law whenever it suits them. However, your interpretation of a judge’s authority flies in the face of A Nation of Laws, Not A nation of Men.

Frankly, I maintain that America is neither a nation of laws, nor a nation of men, but is actually a nation of lawyers.


Lawyers are the law. To be more precise judges are lawyers. After lawyers become judges, without benefit of legislation they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.​

 
Perhaps so, but that is the least of my concerns. What I am qualified to say, is, they have you coming and going For every measure in your favor there is at least one not in your favor. Should that be the flavor of the day, too bad. But then again .....
Good speaking with you. I amso IR
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top