NEWS OF: 5/2/2005

How Would Jesus Vote?

VIEW ALL: Judicial/Courts

Progress for America says it will spend $350,000 dollars on radio ads on Christian stations and $1.5 million dollars on television and cable ads in a variety of targetted states including Maine pounding home the message that even if the Bush administration nominates Li Li the chain smoking monkey for a spot on the Supreme Court, that monkey should be fitted for a robe. PFA asserts that they’re just speaking on behalf of the everyday little people wo want to bypass all that constitutional mumbo jumbo - because the average lobsterman has so much more to gain than, say, a power-broker for the right, when rolling the dice of judicial destiny. See WLBZ

NEWS OF: 4/15/2005

Checks (and Balances), Please…

VIEW ALL: Judicial/Courts

The average American probably thinks that “checks and balances” is the new Science Diet flavor for inactive dogs. If so, take a moment to review the simple chart at SocialStudiesHelp.com. In a nutshell:

- Congress may pass laws, but the President can veto them.
- The President can veto laws, but Congress can override that veto with a 2/3 vote.
- Even if the President and Congress agree on a law, the Supreme Court may declare that law unconstitutional.
- The President can appoint Judges, but Senate must approve them.
- Supreme Court judges have life terms, but they can be impeached.

Not perfect, but it does tend to discourage this kind of scenario:

- 1918 (End of WW1) Political leaders responsible for Germany’s defeat claim that Germany had been “stabbed in the back” by its left wing politicians, Communists, and Jews.

- 1919 Adolf Hitler joins the German Workers’ Party (forerunner to the Nazi party) He encourages national pride and militarism.

- 1923 Early attempts to take over Munich fail and Hitler uses the courtroom at his public trial as a propaganda platform, winning the support of presiding right-wing judges.

Sound a little familiar? Now, when you agree with the judge, she or he is a sage - a wise interpretor of law. When you disagree with the judges, as Tom Delay did, they become an “unaccountable, arrogant, out-of-control judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president.” I understand. Anyone who enjoys sports will inevitably disagree with the umpire, ref, or officials. But without them, the game would disintegrate into chaos.

Today marks the beginning of TV campaigns by the Judicial Confirmation Network, the creepy organization with the innocent-sounding name.

They believe that judges should be interpreting existing law, not “making up new laws” that might, for example, take the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance which has been in the P.O.A. not since it was originally written in 1892, but since 1954, when Congress added the words after a campaign by the Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, during the communist-crazed McCarthy era.

Had similar wisdom been enacted before 1920, no one would have had to “make up new laws” giving women the right to vote. Interracial marriage - now fairly common - was illegal until 1967 - and would still be today.

If the Senate wants to appoint justices? Then we need to put term limits on Supreme Court appointments, of, say eight years. Or treat those seats like a cabinet appointment - and turn over the entire Supreme Court with each president.

Checks and balances…

Find it fast



subscribe to the podcast