Libhater
07-29-2014, 10:32 AM
Shouldn't we have a system where we review (especially activist liberal judges) who are standing for reelection?
The San Francisco--based court the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (better known as the Ninth Circus) is the fountainhead of judicial activism and overreach. When a case is sent to the Ninth Circus, it is a safe bet that the verdict will reflect its leftist views, be at odds with America's founding principles, and stand a good chance of being overturned as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit has ruled:
* "Its Legal to Abet Terrorists."
* The Pledge of Allegiance is "unconstitutional."
* Felons should be allowed to vote.
* Arizona should not be allowed to enforce federal law.
* Illegals should be allowed to vote without ID.
* Threatening to assassinate President George W. Bush (while saying "long live bin Laden") is "protected speech."
While most normal Americans would find the aforementioned rulings by the Ninth Circus to be disturbing and unconscionable, there are those on the left who continue to support these types of rulings, for they are after all part of the anti American leftist agenda.
This judicial activism is exactly what America has gotten from Obama's two picks to the Supreme Court in Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Justice Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." So rather than judge a case on the Constitution, Ms Sotomayor expressed that race, sex, and the "richness of her experiences" are among the guiding principles she will bring to her rulings. Can you say judicial activism?
Justice Kagan: Said that her judicial hero is Aharon Barak (its all right if you confuse that name with Kagan's other hero Barack). She shares Aharon Barak's views that best advance democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice.
One of the troubling things about Kagan's 2006 statement is her assumption that the role of judges is to "advance" abstract concepts and values, rather than faithfully apply the law that they have been given by the people through the Constitution or statutes passed by legislatures.
Excerpts....'Tea Party Patriots'
The San Francisco--based court the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (better known as the Ninth Circus) is the fountainhead of judicial activism and overreach. When a case is sent to the Ninth Circus, it is a safe bet that the verdict will reflect its leftist views, be at odds with America's founding principles, and stand a good chance of being overturned as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit has ruled:
* "Its Legal to Abet Terrorists."
* The Pledge of Allegiance is "unconstitutional."
* Felons should be allowed to vote.
* Arizona should not be allowed to enforce federal law.
* Illegals should be allowed to vote without ID.
* Threatening to assassinate President George W. Bush (while saying "long live bin Laden") is "protected speech."
While most normal Americans would find the aforementioned rulings by the Ninth Circus to be disturbing and unconscionable, there are those on the left who continue to support these types of rulings, for they are after all part of the anti American leftist agenda.
This judicial activism is exactly what America has gotten from Obama's two picks to the Supreme Court in Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Justice Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." So rather than judge a case on the Constitution, Ms Sotomayor expressed that race, sex, and the "richness of her experiences" are among the guiding principles she will bring to her rulings. Can you say judicial activism?
Justice Kagan: Said that her judicial hero is Aharon Barak (its all right if you confuse that name with Kagan's other hero Barack). She shares Aharon Barak's views that best advance democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice.
One of the troubling things about Kagan's 2006 statement is her assumption that the role of judges is to "advance" abstract concepts and values, rather than faithfully apply the law that they have been given by the people through the Constitution or statutes passed by legislatures.
Excerpts....'Tea Party Patriots'