Introducing The Constitution Restoration Act (GOP activist judges bill)

[Robbien]

Tired of waiting for the Second Coming to enforce Christ's rule on Earth? Fortunately, so is your Congress and they know how to "bring it on."

Just when you thought the corporatist/Christian Coalition had milked the 9/11 "surprise" for all it was worth in powers, profits and votes, we regret to report that you may have to think again. Just in case you've briefly fallen behind on your rightwing mailing lists, you might have missed the March 3rd filing of Senate bill S. 520 and House version is H.R. 1070, AKA the "Constitution Restoration Act" (CRA).

In the worshipful words of the Conservative Caucus, this historic legislation will "RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!", mainly by barring ANY federal court or judge from ever again reviewing "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."

In other words, the bill ensures that God's divine word (and our infallible leaders' interpretation thereof) will hereafter trump all our pathetic democratic notions about freedom, law and rights -- and our courts can't say a thing. This, of course, will take "In God We Trust" to an entirely new level, because soon He (and His personally anointed political elite) will be all the legal recourse we have left.

This is not a joke, a test, or a fit of libertarian paranoia. The CRA already has 28 sponsors in the House and Senate, and a March 20 call to lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby's office assures us that "we have the votes for passage." This is a highly credible projection as Bill Moyers observes in his 3/24/05 "Welcome to Doomsday" piece in the New York Review of Books: "The corporate, political, and religious right's hammerlock... extends to the US Congress. Nearly half of its members before the election-231 legislators in all (more since the election)-are backed by the religious right... Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=104&ItemID=7569

Yikes!!!

[patricia92243]

1. The American Taliband has started.

[burythehatchet]

20. actually its nearing its end

their ability to keep the people from evolving is minimal. People will learn to overcome them when they realize that fear is their only weapon.

[Knight of Ni]

55. Aren't their chief weapons SURPRISE and fear?

Not to mention ruthless efficiency.....

[electricray]

59. Fire up the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria.

If this passes I'm going Columbus on this place. I love America, but my fear is that if this passes and is allowed to stand, there will be no more United States of America.

[ltfranklin]

2. Doesn't this mean...

...that the Congress is going to have to define God? Otherwise, any God, I assume, will do, and I don't think that's quite what they had in mind. Otherwise Muslem, Jewish and other religious types will have the ability to use their religious beliefs to interpret the law however they wish.

And, of course, if they define God as a Judeo-Christian god, they're establishing a State Religion, which is unconstitutional.

Kind of a Catch-22, isn't it?

[Robbien]

5. Interesting and true

also think of the confusion when a case involves an atheist?

[just a girl]

7. Didn't the Marriage Protection Act....

Already establish that this country worships the Christian God? I thought that was the basis for banning marriage among gays?

[satya]

31. I interpret to say the govt and its agents will operate under "God's" law

With their control of the ballot box, you can be sure we're talking about the "God" of the Christian Reconstructionists, such as radical cleric Jerry Falwell.

:scared:

[jwirr]

44. In order to see the future

all one needs do is look at the past. Most of our ancestors came to this country because of religious persecution. In Europe ones religion depended on WHO was in control at the time. If the Catholics ruled the citizens had to be Catholic or be persecuted and vise versa. They ended up fighting wars in order to enforce their religious supremacy over their own citizens and this led to drafting soldiers to fight against their own families. It was hell and it did not help either the state or the church. When you look at genealogy the names Huguenots, Pilgrims, Covenanter's and others refer to these persecuted sects who immigrated to the Americas to escape these kind of laws.

When we fight back on this one we need to fight with the history that is behind our argument. Even the Southern settlers that are now voting right wing had ancestors that came to escape these laws. Appeal to their own history.

[Tuesday_Morning]

3. "Yikes" is right n/t

[Robbien]

4. Sponsors of the Bill

Sen Brownback, Sam - 3/3/2005
Sen Burr, Richard - 3/3/2005
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/8/2005
Sen Lott, Trent - 3/8/2005

[Clark2008]

6. Is there any way to initiate a class-action lawsuit that would

A.) Set aside this bill until it can be adjudicated (I rather suspect its unConstitutional) and
B.) Bring attention to this bunch of fascists before it's to late?

[creeksneakers2]

15. B is possible but hard to do

Because, most people are unable to believe what is happening. If you follow talk radio, you'd know there is an extensive RW movement now to take away all authority from the judicial branch. I've told people that and they think I'm a conspiracy nut. Of course, if I'd told people in 1990 that the RW would spend eight years trying to find some bogus reason to throw an elected president in prison, they wouldn't have believed me either.

A is not possible. The courts don't hear matters until they are ripe for adjudication. Even if they did in this case, they'd decide for the GOP. The truth is frightening here.

Under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to control jurisdiction of all federal courts, except where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Congress created the lower courts, and they could do away with all but the Supreme court with a simple majority vote. There is nothing the courts can, or will do about it.

I've had trouble convincing lefties of this, so I'm entering comments from Findlaw.com.

Thus, see Justice Frankfurter's remarks in National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 655 (1948) (dissenting): ''Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.'' In The Francis Wright, 105 U.S. 381, 385 -386 (1882), upholding Congress' power to confine Supreme Court review in admiralty cases to questions of law, the Court said: ''hile the appellate power of this court under the Constitution extends to all cases within the judicial power of the United States, actual jurisdiction under the power is confined within such limits as Congress sees fit to prescribe. . . . What those powers shall be, and to what extent they shall be exercised, are, and always have been, proper subjects of legislative control. Authority to limit the jurisdiction necessarily carries with it authority to limit the use of the jurisdiction. Not only may whole classes of cases be kept out of the jurisdiction altogether, but particular classes of questions may be subjected to reexamination and review, while others are not.'' See also Luckenbuch S. S. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 537 (1926); American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K.W. RY., 148 U.S. 372, 378 (1893); United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393 (1908); United States v. Young, 94 U.S. 258 (1876). Numerous restrictions on the exercise of appellate jurisdiction have been upheld. E.g., Congress for a hundred years did not provide for a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal cases, except upon a certification of division by the circuit court: at first appeal was provided in capital cases and then in others. F. Frankfurter & J. Landis, op. cit., n. 12, 79, 109-120. Other limitations noted heretofore include minimum jurisdictional amounts, restrictions of review to questions of law and to questions certified from the circuits, and the scope of review of state court decisions of federal constitutional questions. See Walker v. Taylor, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 64 (1847). Though McCardle is the only case in which Congress successfully forestalled an expected decision by shutting off jurisdiction, other cases have been cut off while pending on appeal, either inadvertently, Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 541 (1866), or intentionally, Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398 (1878), by raising the requirements for jurisdiction without a reservation for pending cases. See also Bruner v. United States, 343 U.S. 112 (1952); District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U.S. 62 (1901).

Supra, pp.597-598, 599-600.

[LoganW]

35. Totally wrong

"Congress created the lower courts, and they could do away with all but the Supreme court with a simple majority vote."

Nope, because the constitution requires that a judges pay can NOT be diminished. Doing away with a court would most certainly do that.

[creeksneakers2]

51. Not totally wrong

Findlaw says there were only two cases. The first went back to Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded in eliminating circuit courts. The other was early in the 20th century, when Congress got rid of the Commerce Court. Those judges were reassigned.

So, it looks to me like its up in the air.

Upon further reading though, I've found that there is a question as to whether Congress can use elimination of jurisdiction to accomplish what they should accomplish with a constitutional amendment. My (non lawyer) guess is that if they could cut off criminal appeals in the past, they had to cut off constitutional protections. It looks to me like this has already been done.

So, I agree I've been less than correct, but close.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Time to re-evalaute real states rights--->

<>with this portrait of Confederate Secretary of State and Attorney General Judah Philip Benjamin, and
the flag of Acadia <>
which includes
British Columbia
<>,
Washington <>,
Oregon <>, and

California <>

SAVE YOUR CALIFORNIA SUTTERS CREEK GOLD COINS--

THE WEST WILL RISE AGAIN

[ooglymoogly]

9. it just gets scarier and scarier

said the spider to the fly as it bound it up for a meal. who knew there was an invisible green frog on a green lillypad just a tong flick away. so watch out kkkrove critical mass is upon us.

[Discord]

10. *sinking heart*

We need to act before its too late. If this bill passes we are doomed. No if, ands, or buts. This will give them the power to step into anyones personal lives on any level. THIS is what we've been saying about religion being shoved down our throats. We've been warning all of you that this shit was gonna happen. But all you christians would rather take offense to people who oppose religion... Well, maybe you'll all WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!

[jwirr]

45. Discord, if you continue to place

all Christians in one pot you are merely dividing your own soldiers, some of us are Christians.

[BeFree]

11. Our last leg

...is the court system. They have stolen the elective bodies and can now do as they please in that 2/3 of our government.

The last leg we stand on is the judicial 1/3. They are now attempting to knock that out from underneath us.

Imo, it is a radical revolution we are witnessing.

[BattyDem]

12. Goodbye separation of powers ...

It was nice while it lasted. :cry:

[Beam Me Up]

13. Why was this locked in GD and moved???

I don't get it. This needs significant attention and it will get less in Editorials forum.

[Robbien]

16. I asked for it to be moved

I meant it to be posted in editorials because I thought it would get lost in the Pope-arama threads in GD and quickly disappear.

I misjudged how quick DUers are to pick up how important this may be.

[Beam Me Up]

17. Ok. Thanks.

Mention of this has appeared in GD before but I think it is TOO IMPORTANT to be let fall out of GD awareness. It may have to be reposted in various forms for the next while to compete with CON meta-distractions.

[gordianot]

14. The last shoe. The final straw. Point of no return.

They have gone too far. Throw the baby out with the bath water. It's diamond in a goat's butt no one would want to touch.

I have been watching this and I am in my letter writing phase. Logic would say they will back off but Republicans are no longer even a tinge logical.

[Beam Me Up]

18. Let's retitle it THE CONSTITUTION *DEFORMATION* ACT n/t

[Beam Me Up]

27. On second thought, how about "THE CONSTITUTION *DEFECATION* ACT?

They are shitting all over it.

[LevelB]

33. Naw, how about Constitution Restoration Act Proposal?

I think that sums it up quite nicely. ;)

B.

[earth mom]

19. This is freaking me out!

It is getting more ominous in this country by the day....I don't know how much more I can take! :scared:

BTW-Can you get this moved to GD-Politics? I don't read the editorials all that often and so I think it will get lost there after it's removed from the greatest page.

[atommom]

21. The media isn't paying much attention to this bill at all.

I think we're going to have to make some noise, or most Americans will never know what hit them! I emailed Americans United for Separation of Church and State ... they had material on their website about last year's bill (which died), but didn't have anything on this one yet. There need to be action alerts posted, and the media needs to be prodded out of its pope obsession long enough to shine some light on this awful bill.

Hell, I even wrote Sam Brownback. That's how desperate I am... :banghead:

[Robbien]

23. I consider the timing of this bill very suspicious

They sponsor the bill and then push the Shiavo case to the front of the media. Then Delay threatens the judges will be punished, more than likely expecting to use this bill as his tool.

[atommom]

26. I find it very suspicious too. It just falls together too neatly to be

a coincidence.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Thank you for the alert

I'm sure The New York Times will consider this news fit to print -- on page 8.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. I recommend reading the entire act and all of Mr. Kubiak's critique

This piece of proposed legislation is also an attack on recent court decisions, including some written by Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, which take international norms into consideration.

So, what they want to do is substitute an arbitrary idea of God in place of international treaties. Yet, the First Amendment separates church and state and Article 6 of the main body of the Constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land.

How does this restore the Constitution? It sounds like another right wing attempt to undermine it.

[Robbien]

25. Daily Kos has a long thread discussing the issue

with some good legal and political insight.

http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2005/4/3/32823/50890/displaystory//

They say this is similiar to the Religious Freedom Act the fundies tried to ram through last year. But this year they have all the fundies riled up over Schiavo so I don't know.

[Beam Me Up]

28. That dailykos link isn't working for me--would like to see it

poked around but didn't see the article to which you refer.

[Robbien]

29. Sorry, here's a better link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/3/32823/50890

this one should work

[Beam Me Up]

30. THANKS! Wow, that is a long thread...will take a while to read. n/t

[jwirr]

46. Orwellian language!

[Jack Rabbit]

58. I wouldn't give it that much of a compliment

It's pretty hard to put Orwellian language in a piece of legislation. This is pretty standard legalize.

Wait until we hear the arguments in favor of this. That, I expect, will be Orwellian.

[satya]

32. Does section 201 eliminate the Bill of Rights and 200+ yrs of legal

precedents and case law? The Constitution was adopted Sept. 1787; the Bill of Rights wasn't proposed until 1789.

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.

[LevelB]

34. Well, at least they won't be referring

to the Ten Commandments anymore.

B.

[Don_1967]

38. Ten Commandments

would you like to make a bet on that recently saw a TV preacher hold up th bible a say this is my Constitution

[TaleWgnDg]

61. Hhhhmmmmmmmmm . . .

.
This sounds like Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote this section! All kidding aside, this is Scalia's view regarding the inapplicability (in any way) of international law upon our own federal constitution and our entire body of American laws and how our American courts should interpret our laws!! With the exception of British jurisprudence w/ certain time constraints . . . ROFLMAO . . . too damn funny! This legal view is a very very very narrow, crimped, and, frankly, off-the-wall view.

But to answer your question whether this "Sec. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION" will "eliminate the Bill of Rights and 200+ yrs of legal precedents and case law?" . . . No, not really, because this section is about international law. That no American court can rely upon international law of whatever and wherever the source, period. Except, of course, that British jurisprudence at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution may be used including Brit common law. That's because our U.S. Constitution was derived from British jurisprudence.

Therefore, it would impact the Bill of Rights and the entire constitution where international law would or could be referred. Its effect would be narrow.

For example, the 8th amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" was interpreted by the SCOTUS as to juvenile death penalty recently with a look at, but not reliance upon, nor interpretation of, international law. Instead, international law was looked at due to the "evolving standards of decency" without any reliance or interpretation of that evolution in international law that juveniles were no longer executed in foreign countries. This Section 201 would eliminate such referrals.

However, this Section 201 may place a huge clink in how to interpret international treaties ratified by the Senate . . . but that's a nutter whole ball of wax.

Associate Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Antonin Scalia "debated" recently this very international law issue. (C-Span) Breyer said that international law is "looked at" but not relied upon to interpret American laws. Scalia, on the other hand, said "NO WAY!! AND I SIT ON THE BENCH TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING!" . . . LOL . . . What a pompous *ss is Scalia!!

[satya]

63. Thank you! That makes sense now (obviously I'm no lawyer). nt

[TaleWgnDg]

66. You are welcome . . . n/t

[KakistocracyHater]

36. Constitution Restoration Act-GUT & AMEND!!!

Haven't said much, mostly just lurking, but this is truly a 12 alarm alert. It'd be great if all those out of work engineers, scientists, (& others whose jobs have been outsourced) would run for any available local election-pronto-because that bill is horrifically misnamed. Flip it, make it real. Easiest way to deal with it would be to gut & amend the bill. I hope someone already in position has the ability to organize & deal with this madness.

[Knight of Ni]

56. This is the BIZARRO PRESIDENCY!

Let's see what we've had so far under Bush:

A No Child Left Behind Act which underfunds education.

A Clear Skies Initiative which decreases air pollution controls.

A Healthy Forests Initiative which clears the way for loggers to chop down more trees.

A UN Ambassador nominee who doesn't believe in the United Nations.

And now a Constitutional Restoration Act which neuters the Constitution.

Me so happy, me want to cry!!!

[Discord]

37. what amazes me...

is the lack of intrest in this Bill. This is what I would define as the "turning point". This would be when a country changes from secular to theocratic.

My amazement is that so many bright and good people here on DU care more about their God than their country and the rest of us.

No wonder the RW is winning...

[stuckinlucky]

39. I sent this email to Senator Shelby's office

Sen. Shelby,

Having read the summary of the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2005” (S.520), I am deeply troubled by your sponsorship of this bill.

By prohibiting “courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,” your bill not only places legislative barriers between the citizen and his or her First Amendment right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” but also (by proscribing the types of matters on which courts are permitted to rule and the precedents and case-law upon which they may draw) represents a gross violation of the separation of powers envisioned by the Constitution’s framers.

Our Constitution established courts as the primary venue for the citizen to exercise his or her right to petition because our laws are not “one-size-fits-all.” We should be careful of any legislative incursion into matters that rightly remain within the discretion of judicial bodies that are in a unique position to hear the facts of citizen grievances on a case-by-case basis and render their decisions accordingly (particularly when those grievances are against the government itself).

It is my hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter.

Sincerely,

stuckinlucky
A Native Alabamian

[Mist]

40. At least this should be posted at libertarian sites

Hell, even the Freepers (some of them) would be upset to know of this.

[LandOLincoln]

41. Nominate this for front page

and keep this and all related threads KICKED!

[Harlequin]

42. Holy crap.

[GOPFighter]

43. This a bone thrown to the fundies

IMO the Republicans will work just hard enough to make it look like they are doing everything they can for the Fundies but they have no intention of ever letting this get passed. It's just another way of demonizing Democrats because when this comes up for debate many Democrats will strongly oppose it. The bill won't pass and the Republicans will go back to their base and say, "Look we tried to get this passed but the Godless Democrats, under pressure from the liberal fanatics that control the party, fought it off. You must work harder to defeat these heathens!"

No one in America with a lick of sense will want this bill passed. For one thing it is almost certainly unconstitutional, and for another it would open a Pandora's box of weird and even dangerous interpretation's of "god's" will. After all, the Bible allows for slavery, stoning people to death for strange and seemingly minor infractions, and plenty of other hideous stuff.

I once had a coworker, now retired, who was a moderate Republican. He was a close observer of politics and he told me that the Republicans favorite tactic was to propose wacky legislation to appease their wacky, but vital, base knowing the Democrats would fight it and eventually defeat it. Then the Republican party could go back to their base and say they did their best but the Dems are too strong. He often mused how interesting it would be if the Democrats refused to oppose the wacky bills and deprive the Republicans of their foil.

Maybe the best thing to do is keep quiet about this and let the Republicans build up their list of cosponsors. Meanwhile we should be doing a study of the negative effects of this bill and compiling a list of the worst-case scenarios (and they would no doubt frighten any sensible person), work with the Democratic politicians to coordinate a massive campaign (Democrats speaking up in Congress in conjunction with a series of hard-hitting ads on TV and print media) to expose these assholes for their pandering idiocy.

This bill appears to be the perfect vehicle for hoisting the GOP by their own petard!

(BTW, petard derived from the French word for fart! Much like most of the GOP rhetoric these days, they both insult the senses.)

[Knight of Ni]

57. Fundies have been thrown more bones than Jenna Jameson......

...under this administration.

[V Lee]

47. Dear God, save me from your fanatical followers!!!

>> What’s on Bill’s mind? Political commentary with attitude and more at http://www.BillsBrain.com

[jmcon007]

48. you will be executed if you disobey your parents, work on Sunday,

The neonuts love to talk about how we need to take the Bible very literally and, in that event, we will have to follow Deuteronomy law which says you are to be executed if you "strike, curse, or disobey your parents", work on the Sabbath, and about nine other "offenses".

Can you imagine dragging a Christian bookstore owner from a mall and into the streets to stone him or her for working on Sunday? (or Saturday, whichever Sabbath people acknowledge) I imagine the Pat Robertsons of the world would say "Don't be ridiculous.", but if we are to follow the Bible as our law, maybe Robertson and Falwell could enlighten everyone as to why that wouldn't apply today?

I sense civil war coming to this country in my lifetime. And I'm 55.

[Maestro]

49. Disgusting and sick

Writing my rethuglican reps and senators now.

:kick:

Edit: This is going to lead to much religious fighting if it actually passes and is signed into law. What religions should judges be, Catholic? Protestant, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness? This whole bill would open up a huge can of worms. This is certainly making people like Jefferson roll over in his grave.

[AuntiBush]

50. "Fed-Up and Flabbergasted!"

I'm with you, editorially. But, still can't stomach writing or calling my rethuglican lawbreakers.

The "powers that be" are so close to creating civil unrest, (putting it mildly) and came very close to Marshall law opposing one another (Florida)...

Shew. Leaves one speechless.

The Chimp keeps self surrounded by plenty of right-wingnut lawyers. What they need is a doctor in that big White House if they even think to do this to our Constiution!

Sick is right. Misery sure loves company!

:crazy:

[Gamey]

52. Here's a link regarding the 2004 version....

[Mills Street]

53. So, this will take a constitutional amendment to pass, meaning

it has no chance. I am not worried this will come to pass. I am worried that there are this many nuts representing us in Congress.

One nut this extreme is one nut too many.

[BeHereNow]

54. Galations 2:21, 5:4 and Romans 6:14

GAL 2:21  "I do not frustrate the grace of God:
for if righteousness come by the law, then
Christ is dead in vain."
GAL 5:4  "Christ is become of no effect unto you,
whosoever of you are justified by the law;
ye are fallen from grace."
ROM 6:14  "For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Guess those verses have been ommitted in the Fundie Nut case
version of the bible...
BHN

[Helga Scow Stern]

60. They mean business.

This is a full scale attack they mean against the judiciary.

You should have seen those self-righteous gasbags at their press conference today trying to scare the Dems into not opposing them.

[Pool Hall Ace]

62. Scary shite. This needs to stay front and center.

:scared: :kick:

[indepat]

64. Repeal of most of the Patriot Act(s) would be a good starting point

to restoring the Constitution.

[Kablooie]

65. It simply refers to "God", this could be Buddha, Mohammed, or the Devas.

someone on dailykos wrote :

"this bill is theocracy- it restricts the courts from intervening in attemtps to codify the new testament as law.

take gay rights. if texas wanted to reinstate its ovwerturned sodomy law, and texas stated the reason for the law was the gospel of paul, then the courts could not rule it unconstitutional.

and, take slavery.

if utah wanted to reimpose slavery, and appealed to slaveholding in the new testament as the reason for the law, then the courts could not rule this unconstitutional, since the appeal was made to the new testament."

---

Florida could use Muslim law to decree that women must always cover their faces.
Since this stems from the word of God, Muslim God perhaps but still God, no higher courts would be able to review the case

(Actually I don't know if this is a decree from God in the Muslim religion but I'm using it to make a point)

This would allow any religious writings that are considered the sovereign word of God to be used as a standard for interpreting U.S. law.
And there would be no recourse at all in the higher courts to adjust this.
.
Sounds a bit like anarchy to me.

[dsnail]

67. Judicial Activism

Here's another good article on the topic:

Activist Judges
by Patricia Goldsmith

Whatever else the sad case of Terri Schiavo represents, it marks the first time that there has been mass awareness of the fact that we are living in an incipient theocracy. Alarm bells started to ring when people saw all the big guns -- the executive branch, Congress, the media -- pointing at one court deciding one case in Florida. For the first time, people imagined themselves, rather than some demonized other, clashing with an intrusive religious government -- with courts helpless to put a stop to it. Tom DeLay’s official statement on Terri Schiavo’s death upped the ante: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.” DeLay obviously intends to start impeaching judges with whom he disagrees on religious grounds, in defiance of our constitutionally mandated separation of church of state....
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Goldsmith0405.htm