|home / pro-life reports|
HOW JUDGES ARE REMAKING AMERICA - A President's Legacy
"Activist judges have been legislating a liberal agenda that opposes religious values, conventional morality, the Constitution, and even the right of American citizens to govern ourselves," Phyllis Schlafly from her book "The Supremacists." She lists the following examples of judges legislating from the bench:
"The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew that the essence of freedom is the right to be a self-governing people, to have laws made by representatives whom the voters elect, because government can justly exercise only such powers as are based on "the consent of the governed." and "The Constitution grants "all" legislative power to Congress." (From "The Supremacists")
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? Activist Judges
First: Liberal judges consider the Constitution a living and evolving document. One such judge wrote that the Court often rewrites history.
Second: Another liberal Justice called the Due Process Clause "the wildcard to be put to such use as the judges choose."This clause appears in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Liberal justices have interpreted "due process" to include substantive rights such as used in the Dred Scott case (1857), expanding the rights of slave owners, and in Roe v. Wade (1973), declaring a right to abortion.
Third: The judges are in for life. They are unelected, life-tenured, and unaccountable. The two oldest United States Supreme Court justices are 88 and 75. Both are very liberal and very pro-abortion.
A PRESIDENT'S LEGACY
The judges a President appoints both to federal courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court, can truly be called his legacy. They will certainly outlive that presidentıs term and probably outlive several more presidents. The decisions they make and the laws they help pass will effect at least three generations.
Linda Chavez, a columnist, www.creators.com, writes, "What remains is for the voters to decide how much power they are willing to turn over to unelected men and women with lifetime tenure--and pick their president accordingly."
Will the next president appoint justices to federal courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court that believe the Constitution is an evolving document with decisions that change case by case or will he appoint justices who respect the Constitution and follow it as it is written?
POWER OF JUDGES VS. LEGISLATORS AND THE PEOPLE
Several recent cases have clearly shown the power of the judiciary. In California the State Supreme Court overruled Proposition 22 and allowed same sex marriages.
In Oklahoma, to quote EagleForum.org, "The elected representatives in Oklahoma passed a law to stem the tide of illegal aliens and faster than you can say judicial supremacy," a federal judge blocked its enforcement."
In Palmdale, CA, the Ninth Circuit took away the parents' rights. These judges based their decision on "our evolving understanding of the nature of our Constitution," that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."
|top / home / pro-life reports|