Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

* Supreme Judges and Just-Ice

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal Los Angeles - November 24, 2000 ____________________________________________________ Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 24 4:27 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles - November 24, 2000
      Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
      For a beautiful navy blue T-shirt with "J.A.I.L." on the back and www.jail4judges.org large and visible over the pocket, imprinted in a bright yellow-gold lettering, send your check payable to J.A.I.L. for $11.95 plus $4 S&H. (Discounts on volume quantities.) Wear them to your next courthouse function and watch the reaction.
      J.A.I.L. has been donated $900 worth of 90 minute phone cards usable through the last day of June, 2001, and have a market value of $9 each. We are discounting them to $6 each, and all proceeds go into the cause of freedom. They make very practical holiday gifts for friends and family. Rush your check with a self-addressed stamped envelope to "J.A.I.L.," P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA. 91603 and state how many you want. Take this opportunity to financially support J.A.I.L. which is much needed. Thanks.
      Supreme Judges and Just-Ice

      How democracy was lost

      Supreme Court worship is declining as commentators catch on that the Court has become a direct threat to the rule of law. National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru says that the Supreme Court represents rule by the subjective preferences of "nine people -- and, often enough, of one woman." Former federal appeals court judge Robert H. Bork says our robed masters "bear less resemblance to judges than they do to commissars." The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen says the Court is overcome with hubris produced by its belief in its own supremacy and its contempt for the people and their elected representatives.
      In his dissent from the Court's recent decision overturning laws against partial-birth abortion, Justice Scalia said that the ruling rests on the personal value judgments of five people and was made independently of any legal argument or constitutional principle. Supreme Court justices -- and, increasingly, judges generally -- no longer
      accept that Americans are entitled by the Constitution to govern themselves.
      For many years, the Court's rhetoric has made it clear that the Supreme Commissars associate self-rule with prejudice, irrationality and the animus of intolerant majorities. The Commissars no longer pretend to interpret the Constitution. Instead, Supreme Commissars legislate from the bench. This usurpation of the constitutional power and authority of Congress directly violates the separation of powers and is grounds for impeachment. But Congress has found that rule by judges is a convenient way to avoid responsibility for divisive issues and has acquiesced in the Court's aggrandizement. Congress pats itself on the back each time it sidesteps a politically dangerous issue. But in truth, Congress has permitted the rise of judicial coercion.

      Both Republican and Democratic parties acknowledge the fact of judicial rule. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes, both parties motivate their activists by emphasizing that winning the presidency is important in order to gain "the power to select the people who actually rule the country -- federal judges." For many years now, both political parties have tacitly accepted a new political system in which law no longer originates only in elected representatives who are accountable to the people. This change in our constitutional order is probably as permanent as the "temporary" racial quotas that were illegally implemented 30 years ago in order to more rapidly integrate blacks into society. Both of these policies originated from the same Supreme Court decision, Brown vs. Board of Education, in 1954. The rise of robed masters and the demise of equality in law date from this decision.

      The problem lies not in desegregation, but in the manner in which it was
      achieved. It was not done constitutionally and democratically through
      appeals to good will, persuasion and legislative action. Instead, impatience drove a liberal elite to usurp the legislative power and the democratic process in the name of a just result. They believed the end justified the unconstitutional means.

      Many of the justices recognized what was happening and had to be carried along kicking and screaming. Justice Hugo Black saw the Brown decision as "law by injunction." Justice Robert H. Jackson saw the ruling as a blatantly political act. He predicted that the "ruthless use of federal judicial power" would follow if segregation were abolished by judicial decree based on nonlegal opinion that "starts and ends with sociology." Justice Stanley Reed said the Brown decision marked the beginning of kritarchy -- rule by judges.

      The Brown ruling was hatched from a book, "An American Dilemma," the work of Justice Felix Frankfurter's Swedish socialist friend, Gunnar Myrdal. Myrdal argued that democracy was the source of segregation. He alleged that the American people, Northerners as well as Southerners, were imbued with racist impulses that would forever perpetuate segregation. He argued that the "Negro problem" would persist without the intervention of an extrademocratic power. He advocated a conspiracy by an educated elite to use the coercive power of the judiciary to end segregation.

      Myrdal succeeded. But the Brown decision attacked more than segregation. It attacked the presumption of goodwill and freedom of conscience that are the foundations of our civil society. Brown was explicitly based on the assumption that representative democracy cannot produce moral outcomes.

      Consequently Brown's aftermath is not only busing and racial preferences, but also judicial usurpation of legislative power. We are still laboring under this heavy indictment of democracy. The Brown decision marks a fundamental shift in attitudes about the legitimacy of democracy and the will of the people. The Brown decision introduced into our
      political system the use of judicial coercion in behalf of just causes. One
      day in the future, a historian will write: "The American Constitution lasted less than two centuries. It was toppled in 1954 when kritarchy first raised its ugly head."

      ©2000 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
      (Sent to J.A.I.L. by B. Lokey)

      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      To contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
      All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.com
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.