Rein In Every Judge

[Flanders]

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

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/69868​

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. Selwyn Duke’s article is first:

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.”

XXXXX​

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

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/why_not_one_governor_is_qualified_to_be_president.html​

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 to authority to bring back every one of mankind’s horrors and destruction in this country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RXFU50BlzEA​

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

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/judge-authorizes-personal-ruin-for-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

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/03/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

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8700​

Those 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 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

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/supremes-asked-to-halt-compelled-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?

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; even more so when the government violates the VIIIth and the XIIIth Amendments.

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 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 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

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/does_the_constitution_force_bakers_to_bake.html​

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 in the fight for individual liberties and limited government?

 

[Fast Eddy]

Federal Judges need to be elected, the appointment and approval process is broken.

 

[Flanders]

Federal Judges need to be elected, the appointment and approval process is broken.

To Fast Eddy: Irrespective of the issues, or how the judges get to the bench, it will be decided by 5 judges on the Supreme Court —— activist liberal judges more often than not:

On the evening of February 16, Federal Judge Andrew Hanen did the unthinkable. He dared thwart Obama’s Imperial Executive Amnesty Order. Judge Hanen went all in. Not only did he enjoin Obama and his agents from operationalizing the Five Million New Democrat Voter Edict, he enjoined them from any and all attempts to slip through any potential vagaries in the Court’s language.

Judge Hanen has given us a chance we won’t likely see again. Will we take it?
Calling and Raising Immigration Exploitation
By Dr. Brad Lyles
February 20, 2015

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/69902​

XXXXX​

Probate judges in Alabama caught between conflicting state and federal judicial decisions over same-sex marriage are urging the state Supreme Court to throw in the towel since the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue within months.

The request came in a series of court filings from some of the probate judges, who are designated in Alabama to issue marriage licenses.

Judges want Alabama to throw in towel over marriage
Posted By Bob Unruh
On 02/19/2015 @ 9:52 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/judges-want-alabama-to-throw-in-towel-over-marriage/​

XXXXX​

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore told WND on Monday he’s not backing away from the state court versus federal court fight over marriage, because he believes, constitutionally, the states are allowed to define the institution.

And it will remain that way unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling on the merits, he contends.

Judge Roy Moore defies feds: 'Law is very clear'
Posted By Bob Unruh
On 02/09/2015 @ 2:27 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/judge-roy-moore-the-law-is-very-clear/​

 

[EatTheRich]

The Supreme Court historically advanced a lot of democratic/constitutional rights against tyranny from the other branches of government. The problem is not so much the threat of tyranny from the judiciary, as the threat that all 3 branches of government are dominated by a minority ruling class (the bourgeoisie).

 

[Flanders]

Defending the First Amendment has become a twisted joke. Governor Mike Pence claims 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.

8th Amendment​

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

Baking cakes, taking wedding pictures, and floral arrangements got all of the publicity supposedly defending freedom of religion, but the ACA is the force driving judicial involuntary servitude.

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.​

In plain English, every law that is passed becomes “appropriate legislation” so long as a judge says it is so.

Finally, 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

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoyer-says-constitution-s-general-welfare-clause-empowers-congress-order-americans-buy​

 

[Flanders]

One possible ruling in involuntary servitude cases says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them.

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

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/indiana-pizza-shop-we-wont-serve-gays/​

 

[Flanders]

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 is reporting 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

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/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 embodied 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.

p.s. 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.

 

[Flanders]

Doing nothing is often the best course of action, while doing something can hardly do more harm rather than doing nothing about the Nifty Nine:

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.

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

Senator Ted Cruz is calling for a Constitutional amendment that would require nationwide elections every eight years on retaining Supreme Court justices.

The proposal comes in the wake of the decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage that many observers say had less to do with the law than they had to do with politics.

Washington Post:

“I am proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would subject each and every justice of the United States Supreme Court to periodic judicial retention elections," Cruz said Saturday, during a speech in Des Moines, Iowa. He also called for such elections in the National Review on Friday.

The proposal from Cruz, who once served as Supreme Court clerk, comes as he is trying to position himself as the presidential candidate of choice for conservatives and evangelicals who disagree with the court's decisions this week. The Texas Republican is using the rulings to paint himself as a stalwart defender of religious freedom, opponent of same-sex marriage and reaffirm his pledge to abolish the Affordable Care Act should he win the presidency.

Cruz is also using the rulings to reemphasize his assertion that he tacks far to the right of the rest of the 2016 GOP field when it comes to social issues, a point he started making in the wake of a controversial religious freedom law Indiana passed in March.

"Sadly we’ve seen several 2016 candidates in response to yesterday’s decision saying it is the law of the land, we must accept it and move on," Cruz said as the Des Moines audience booed. "When Republican candidates are standing up and reciting Barack Obama's talking points things have gone seriously wrong."

Earlier this year Cruz filed legislation that would protect states that prohibit same-sex couples from getting married.

Cruz said last week in Iowa that some Republican presidential candidates chose to "rearrange their sock drawers" in the wake of the Indiana decision. After a backlash to the initial law, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed arevised version of the religious freedom bill making it clear that businesses cannot use the legislation as the basis to discriminate based on sexual orientation.​

Since the Supreme Court justices continues to act like politicians rather than judges, this is a proposal that actually makes sense. But at the same time, there is the danger that exposing the justices to the political winds might taint their decisions anyway.

I believe that rather than elections, what's needed is a better way to vet Supreme Court nominees. The way we go about approving nominees is appalling. Senators can't ask specific questions about rulings in order to pin down the nominee on where he/she stands. That's got to change. The American people have a right to know if a justice will vote to overturn Roe or how expansive their view of civil rights might be. It may make it more difficult to confirm a nominee but that might make the president look a little harder at a nominee's beliefs before sending their name up to the Hill.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/ted_cruz_calls_for_judicial_retention_elections_for_supreme_court_justices.html