KEYNOTE SPEAKERS INCLUDE Congressman Lamar Smith, David C. Gibbs, Esq., attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents, Chief Justice Roy Moore and former Ambassador Alan Keyes.
SPEAKERS INCLUDE Alan Keyes, Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins, Mike Farris, Howard Phillips, Bill Dannemeyer, Morton Blackwell, Bill Federer, Rick Scarborough, Don Feder, Kay Daly, Janet Folger, Jan LaRue, Tim Lee and Patrick Reilly.
OUR FOCUS The Judicial Assault On Our Judeo-Christian Heritage, Judges: Abortion And Other Life Issues, Judicial Nominations, The Real Constitution, Remedies To Judicial Tyranny, Mobilizing The Grassroots, and The Decline Of Faith And What To Do About It
THIS WILL BE AN ACTION-ORIENTED CONFERENCE SEEKING SOLUTIONS, AS WELL AS THE BEGINNING OF A BROAD-BASED EFFORT TO SAVE AMERICA FROM THE JUDGES
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Last edited by ¡B! on Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:58 pm Posts: 1148 Location: Green Bay
I'd like to go to that conference just to hear what they have to say. I know in advance I won't agree with any of it, but it'd certainly be interesting.
Note - I wonder if these people are aware that the Pledge of Allegiance has existed longer WITHOUT the phrase "under god" than it has WITH the phrase.
_________________ When the last living thing Has died on account of us, How poetical it would be If Earth could say, In a voice floating up Perhaps From the floor Of the Grand Canyon, "It is done. People did not like it here.''
It was appalling when the House majority leader threatened political retribution against judges who did not toe his extremist political line. But when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared.
It happened on Monday, in a moment that was horrifying even by the rock-bottom standards of the campaign that Republican zealots are conducting against the nation's judiciary. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, rose in the chamber and dared to argue that recent courthouse violence might be explained by distress about judges who "are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public." The frustration "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in" violence, said Mr. Cornyn, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which supposedly protects the Constitution and its guarantee of an independent judiciary.
Listeners could only cringe at the events behind Mr. Cornyn's fulminating: an Atlanta judge was murdered in his courtroom by a career criminal who wanted only to shoot his way out of a trial, and a Chicago judge's mother and husband were executed by a deranged man who was furious that she had dismissed a wild lawsuit. It was sickening that an elected official would publicly offer these sociopaths as examples of any democratic value, let alone as holders of legitimate concerns about the judiciary.
The need to shield judges from outside threats - including those from elected officials like Senator Cornyn - is a priceless principle of our democracy. Senator Cornyn offered a smarmy proclamation of "great distress" at courthouse thuggery. Then he rationalized it with broadside accusations that judges "make raw political or ideological decisions." He thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, suggesting that the Supreme Court be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people." Avoiding that nightmare is precisely why the founders made federal judgeships lifetime jobs and created a nomination process that requires presidents to seek bipartisan support.
Echoes of the political hijacking of the Terri Schiavo case hung in the air as Mr. Cornyn spoke, just days after the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, vengefully vowed that "the time will come" to make the judges who resisted the Congressional Republicans' gruesome deathbed intrusion "answer for their behavior." Trying to intimidate judges used to be a crime, not a bombastic cudgel for cynical politicians.
The public's hope must be that Senator Cornyn's shameful outburst gives further pause to Senate moderates about the threats of the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, to scrap the filibuster to ensure the confirmation of President Bush's most extremist judicial nominees. Dr. Frist tried to distance himself yesterday from Mr. DeLay's attack on the judiciary. But Dr. Frist must carry the militants' baggage if he is ever to run for president, and he complained yesterday of "a real fire lighted by Democrats around judges over the last few days."
By Democrats? The senator should listen to what's being said on his side of the aisle, if he can bear it.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
"Now, in the names of all the gods at once,
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great? Age, thou art shamed!
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!"
"Brutus had rather be a villager
Than to repute himself a son of Rome
Under these hard conditions as this time
Is like to lay upon us."
"And why should Caesar be a tyrant then?
Poor man! I know he would not be a wolf,
But that he sees the Romans are but sheep:
He were no lion, were not Romans hinds.
Those that with haste will make a mighty fire
Begin it with weak straws: what trash is Rome,
What rubbish and what offal, when it serves
For the base matter to illuminate
So vile a thing as Caesar! But, O grief,
Where hast thou led me? I perhaps speak this
Before a willing bondman; then I know
My answer must be made. But I am arm'd,
And dangers are to me indifferent."
"If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men?"
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:52 pm Posts: 1058 Location: Hong Kong
Funny, I was going to post this after lunch. What happened to the Republican party? I can still sit talk and debate w/ most of my republican friends. However, the people they are electing are not like most republicans I know. The people representing them are becoming downright scary in my book.
Waving some real checks and balances Wednesday, April 06, 2005 David Sarasohn
N ot that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, was threatening anybody.
Golly, no.
On the Senate floor Monday, he was just, um, wondering.
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country," mused Cornyn.
". . . I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence."
Unfortunately, Cornyn ran out of time -- or maybe rational thought -- before he could explain which unaccountable political decision the Atlanta rapist was protesting when he killed the state judge and three other people, or just how the losing plaintiff in a federal civil case was representing the public when he killed a federal judge's husband and mother.
Still -- and who knows "if there is a cause-and-effect connection" -- it seemed striking to Sen. Cornyn that just as some judges reached decisions he didn't like, other judges and their families were being murdered.
Darned coincidental.
Not everyone is pondering gunfire as a form of constitutional disagreement, but in certain GOP circles it's clearly open season on judges. Republicans in the House and Senate are loudly denouncing jurists for rulings in the Terri Schiavo case, on gay marriage and other social issues, and for just generally declining to do what Republican congressmen want. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, warned after the Schiavo decisions, "We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that snubbed their nose at Congress and the president. We will look into that." He added darkly, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."
DeLay's sense of timing, of course, makes him a moderate compared with Cornyn, who wanted judges to know that their time to answer could come at any moment -- maybe down in their basements.
Congressmen, like other people, frequently take exception to judges' decisions, even when the congressmen aren't pleading not guilty. But the current fury extends beyond disagreement, to a rage against judges -- much of the time, Republican judges -- for just daring to claim there is any law beyond what congressmen want.
Last month, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., attacked Florida Circuit Judge George Greer -- who's been getting death threats a lot more explicit than any of Cornyn's musings -- for decisions "outright disrespectful to Terri's family," adding, "The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable."
Strong words for one branch of government to use about a branch that's coequal -- at least for the moment.
In February, two of Santorum's colleagues, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sam Brownback of Kansas, denounced a federal judge's decision in an obscenity case: "This is what happens when judges ignore the law in favor of their own agenda . . . In their wake, the Constitution lies in shambles, statutes passed by the people's representatives are in the Dumpster, the rule of law loses its vitality and, once again, the people are deprived of the right to govern themselves and define the culture."
Hatch and Brownback at least get to the core of the outrage: the idea that it's intolerable for any judge to interfere with Congress, to block popular government and its right to "define the culture" -- even if some people think the Constitution does that. As the Senate moves toward its confrontation on judicial nominations, it makes you think that the goal isn't Republicans or even right-wingers, but rubber-stampers -- or else.
Still, some congressional conservatives have another solution for their frustration. "When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them," Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., told the Christian Coalition last November. "Federal courts have no army or navy . . . At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."
After 200 years, that might seem an extreme position.
Then again, at least Hostettler wasn't musing about judges having their families killed.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
PunkDavid warned after the Schiavo decisions, "We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable Congress that snubbed their nose at the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. We will look into that." He added darkly, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."
*quotes Shakespeare some more
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
S 520 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 520
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2005
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.
TITLE I--JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.
(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.
(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.
TITLE II--INTERPRETATION
SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.
SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--
(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and
(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
Quote:
These people are out of their motherfucking minds.
Yes they are! Who's to stop them when ignorance is in power?
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Did I read that correctly? Did it say that the Supreme Court cannot hear any case in which someone is suing or being sued by the other two branches of government?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
OrpheusDescending wrote:
This may seem like an exagerration of the most extreme degree, but the US seems to be deteriorating like ancient Rome.
It's no exagerration. You may die comfortable in the knowledge that you saw it coming.
just_b wrote:
Did I read that correctly? Did it say that the Supreme Court cannot hear any case in which someone is suing or being sued by the other two branches of government?
Not exactly. It says that the Supreme Court may not, and by extension no other federal courts may, hear a case in which a person sues a government official for stating that God is the source of law, liberty, or government. At first blush, this may seem like a freedom of speech issue, but it could also very well be an establishment clause issue. This bill is obviously a setup for a future action, and I can't quite read what the big picture plan is yet. I'll keep you posted.
The bill also proposes to prohibit any court from considering any law or policy of any foreign or international entity in making its decisions.
The irony is that the Supreme Court will strike down this law flat if it is ever passed, which I consider highly unlikely. The Republicans are simply determined to prove that they are completely batshit crazy and have no regard for the rule of law as it extends further than the laws that they write in this particular Congress.
I'm glad they believe in God, because He has reserved a very special place in hell for them.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
the hypocrisy is unbelievable
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."
Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.
A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."
"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."
The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.
The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.
Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.
Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."
Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.
Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.
Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."
A court spokeswoman declined to comment.
_______________________________________________
In Henry VI part 2, there is an oft misquoted line by a conspirator called Dick the Butcher. He and others are plotting to overthrow the rightful King and install a pretender, John Cade, who has a demogogic color to him.
Dick says, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Cade responds, "Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man?"
Yes, that accursed parchment. That parchment upon which the Constitution, and the Bill of Right are scrawled. That parchment which survives through the centuries to stand above man and his unbridled desire for power.
The American people must learn from the wisdom of the past that the lawyers, the judges, and the rule of law are all that stands between them and oppression and tyranny at the hands of the Legislature and Executive.
These people are quoting STALIN for Christ's sake!
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
