Friday, March 17, 2017



When activist judges flout the very laws they’re sworn to uphold, are their renegade decisions lawful, and should they be allowed to stand?



Also, are those most deeply affected by these wayward judicial opinions really required to comply with them, or should they just be ignored and disregarded?


75 comments:

  1. Our system allows for appeal of a decision to higher courts.

    If a decision of a lower court is upheld by a higher court the decision stands.

    The moment a group decides it doesn't accept a desicion, ignores it, breaks the law then we in effect cease to be a nation of laws.

    A step towards anarchy.

    Our system may stink but it still remains better than the rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,
      Our system may stink but it still remains better than the rest.

      I must agree.

      Delete
    2. Our system would NOT "stink" at ALL, IF Progressivism had not pushed us to stray so far from the bonds of the Constitution as written by the Founders.

      Delete
    3. The judicial system no longer works as the Founders intended it to, BECAUSE it has been so thoroughly politicized since FDR's Raw Deal turned us into a de facto socialist country.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. NOTICE:

      WE DO NOT ACCEPT comments that insult, ridicule, attempt to catechize, badger, defame or otherwise injure fellow bloggers. PERIOD!

      Delete
  2. FT,
    should they just be ignored and disregarded?

    My heart says, "Yes!" But my mind says, "No!"

    There must be rule of civil law -- or else anarchy ensues.

    I do worry that our entire judicial system is infested with activist judges, who, regardless of the Constitution, are determined to promote their ideology and ever looking for a way to grind their own axes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But IF their decisions are not in fact LEGAL –– i.e. unconstitutional –– WHY should any sane person respect those decisions?

      These rotten leftist-activist Judges have USURPED power that more properly belongs to CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT.

      I believe they MUST somehow be DEPOSED.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      It looks to me as if Trump is going to appeal this all way up to the SCOTUS level. We'll then find out if all the layers in our court system work to uphold the Constitution.

      Delete
    3. He has said as much, but he'd better wit u-ntl Judge Girsuch is confirmed before he goes that far.

      Meanwhile, potentially deadly individuals continue to pour in from Moslem countries. We can thank the D'Rat-AIPAC 1965 revision of our Immigration Policies spearheaded by Teddy Kennedeath for that.

      Delete
  3. Addendum:

    There is an impeachment process for removing activist judges, isn't there?

    EXCEPT

    there does seem to be a brotherhood of judges, from the bottom to the top of the judicial system. Many went to university law school together and protect each other's back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Before the law sits a gatekeeper. To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment. The man thinks about it and then asks if he will be allowed to come in later on. “It is possible,” says the gatekeeper, “but not now.” At the moment the gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try it in spite of my prohibition. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I can’t endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat, at his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard, he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside. The gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down at the side in front of the gate. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be let in, and he wears the gatekeeper out with his requests. The gatekeeper often interrogates him briefly, questioning him about his homeland and many other things, but they are indifferent questions, the kind great men put, and at the end he always tells him once more that he cannot let him inside yet. The man, who has equipped himself with many things for his journey, spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper. The latter takes it all but, as he does so, says, “I am taking this only so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.” During the many years the man observes the gatekeeper almost continuously. He forgets the other gatekeepers, and this one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law. He curses the unlucky circumstance, in the first years thoughtlessly and out loud, later, as he grows old, he still mumbles to himself. He becomes childish and, since in the long years studying the gatekeeper he has come to know the fleas in his fur collar, he even asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper. Finally his eyesight grows weak, and he does not know whether things are really darker around him or whether his eyes are merely deceiving him. But he recognizes now in the darkness an illumination which breaks inextinguishably out of the gateway to the law. Now he no longer has much time to live. Before his death he gathers in his head all his experiences of the entire time up into one question which he has not yet put to the gatekeeper. He waves to him, since he can no longer lift up his stiffening body.

    The gatekeeper has to bend way down to him, for the great difference has changed things to the disadvantage of the man. “What do you still want to know, then?” asks the gatekeeper. “You are insatiable.” “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and, in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.
    - Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AHA! After I'd read perhaps twenty-percent of our except Undecided it was "Kafka-esque," but thought it might be a translation of some ancient Oriental Tale that must have been a precursor to Kafka, because the story creates the atmosphere of an ancient fairy tale, but the joke was on me after all, because it WAS by Kafka all along.

      Who else could it have been?

      Reminds me too of the sad plight of Madga Sorel in Menotti's opera The Consul.

      Delete
    2. It's just of tale of "belief" in Law. You don't have to believe.

      Delete
    3. I don't believe in it, except as a necessary evil.

      The Beadle in Dickens' Oliver Twist had it right when he said, "The Law is a ASS!" ;-)

      Why is that so?

      Because it depends entirely too much in whims and fancies of whomever has been chosen to ADMINISTER it. "Objectivity" is a MYTH. There ain't no such animal.

      Delete
  5. Conspiracy or coincidence?

    From Federal Judge Who Blocked Trump Order Was Obama’s Classmate:

    Ever since a federal judge in Hawaii issued a sweeping freeze of President Donald Trump’s new immigration moratorium Wednesday, conspiracy theories have abounded across social media.

    The leading theory suggested that former President Barack Obama played a role in the ruling. As noted by Hawaii News Now, the former president arrived in the islands Monday for an unexpected visit.

    He reportedly dined Tuesday evening at Noi Thai Cuisine, an upscale restaurant, less than 24 hours before U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson, a law school classmate of Obama, ruled against Trump’s immigration order.

    [...]

    Plus, according to an old White House transcript, it was in fact Obama who had appointed Watson to the court three years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never believed in coincidences –– particularly when it comes to matters political.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come back to us after you've taken a good stiff course in Remedial English and attended charm School to learn how to behave with grace and good taste.

      Delete
  7. We have no such problems in the People's Republic of China.

    If you inscrutable Americans would simply listen to the Democrat party and usher in glorious communism, such conundrums would be eradicated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Mr. KIA, but you should know by now we do not accept BOILERPLATE here, especially when it has nothing to do with the stated topic of the post.

      If you'd like to return and comment on the constitutionality or illegality of judicial activism, we'd be interested to hear what you might have to say.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your toxic, moronic presence is never welcome here, Les.

      As I've told at least a hundred times GET OUT and STAY OUT.

      Delete
  12. Who's posting all these deleted comments??? I was in a the hospital yesterday (again, ugh), so I'm a little behind.

    If this is about the travel ban thing, I wouldn't call that "judicial activism." I understand the tenets involved. This will end up being decided later, either on appeal or by the SCOTUS.

    As a matter of precedent, the President would be the "activist" in this case. He's using the Immigration and Nationality Act in a way that it's never been used, nor was intended. He may be legally right. We'll see. But regardless of the legality or who's the activist here, it's still just ugly Muslim-baiting, and has nothing to do with national security. If anything, it just hurts everyone involved except for terrorists. I think our President is not smart.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry you had to be in hospital, Jersey. Hope it helped you?

      Naturally, I disagree completely with your analysis, if one could call it that.

      If it had been up to ME, starting September 12, 2001, I would have closed all the mosques, had every one of them razed, sold the property and appropriated the funds derived therefrom to help pay the national debt. I would also have simultaneously rounded up every Muslim. interned them all, and made arrangements for their SWIFT and IRREVOCABLE DEPORTATiON to a Muslim Hellhole in the Middle East.

      THAT is how our government would have responded to such a threat when I was a schoolboy. We were still a CUNTRY then. Now we are nothing but a gaggle of MISEDUCATED, SUICIDAL WEAKLINGS who don't know SHIT from SHINOLA and foolishly imagine their IGNORANCE and pathetic STUPIDITY to be VIRTUOUS.

      And YES presidents DO have the authority to do things on this broad and Draconian a scale. Look no farther than LINCOLN, WILSON, and FDR, if you don't want to believe me.

      What President Trump has proposed is NOWHERE NEAR as radical as any of the things THEY did.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, it helped. Still have to wait for those damned surgeries. Very frustrating. I feel like a lousy layabout! I just can't do ANYTHING anymore. I have to get back to you on all that...

      Well, as a matter of law, if this ban stood, I wouldn't be surprised. It can be thought to be within the President's purview. It can also be thought that the 14th and 1st Amendments are not violated in this case. The opposite could be argued as well. I'd love to hear it before the SCOTUS.

      But back to the law... Before the INA, it was a little more complicated, but the INA of 1952 clarified matters a bit, so prior examples are a little misplaced. As well, some of the things Wilson and FDR did are now considered illegal and would never be allowed today.

      Whatever the case, when you look at precedent, Presidents have used this power on a nation by nation basis, usually only one nation at a time, and never explicitly targeting religious or ethnic groups, though one can easily see how Catholics, Jews, Slavs, Asians, and other specific groups were in fact the real targets in these examples.

      Remember though, in cases where you had bans, as opposed to just adjusting immigration quotas, they were most always on a nation with which we were at declared war. We're not at war with any of those states, or any at the moment, and we are certainly not at war with all of Islam. That would be silly. And Islam, a religion with a billion-and-a-half followers spread all over the world, is not at war with us. Two of the largest Muslim-population countries in the world, India and Indonesia, are major trading partners and have not posed any significant terrorist threat to us that I know of.

      So, if protecting the American people is the goal of this, why did he choose countries who've had little or nothing to do with terrorism against America or Americans? It seems he just targeted countries that are either failed states or so dirt poor and ruined they have no political leverage or international power. He's hitting the weak, while ignoring the more powerful and developed states who actually have sent a lot of terrorists our way.

      What you or I may like to see doesn't get to the questions you're asking in this post, though.

      "When activist judges flout the very laws they’re sworn to uphold, are their renegade decisions lawful, and should they be allowed to stand?"

      Well, no!

      "Also, are those most deeply affected by these wayward judicial opinions really required to comply with them, or should they just be ignored and disregarded?"

      Well, no!

      But if the example is a stay on an executive order with serious legal and constitutional questions hanging over it, I do not see "judicial activism" or any reason for civil disobedience.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. JMJ,
      I was in a the hospital yesterday (again, ugh)

      I feel for ya! I've seen way too much of hospitals since June 2016 -- with no real resolution to whatever is wrong with me.

      Don't feel like a lousy layabout! If you're sick, you're sick. You can only do the best that you can do.

      Delete
    4. Thanks AOW, it's a pickle. Have to wait for surgeries, can't avoid some pre-surgery problems. I've always worked very hard. Never was dependent on anyone or anything. This has been hard on me. Your words of encouragement are deeply appreciated.

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. I send AOW's sage advice. If you're a victim of circumstances beyond your control, there is no reason to feel guilty or ashamed.

      I can undeestand why you feel FRUSTATED and IMPATIENT, very well, however. That's only natural. You wouldn't be human if you didn't feel that way.

      I have guests right now, but we need to talk in a few days. I just hope you are gettng all the medical attention you need?

      Waiting for needed surgery siunds too much like the VA or what people have to put up with in Britain, Canada, and the European countries. Exactly what we DON'T want to establish as the New Norm HERE.

      Delete
  13. Like doctors who can't be competent, I suggest these judges lose their license. Like sotomayor, who had 65% of her opinions reffered to the supreme court overturned. She ought to be flipping burgers rather than sitting on the SC.
    The entire 9th circuit should be bussing tables in some mexican restaurant in san fran.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NAH! Send 'em to TIJUANA!

      ]:^}>

      Delete
    2. See, here's an example of how group-think deludes people. Kid, beyond that silly stat you just through out there (an average number, buy the way), what do you really know about Sotomayor? You just assume she's some "liberal" "activist judge" because you've been told that. I don't think you know anything about her or her judicial history.

      JMJ

      Delete
  14. And that silly "9th Circuit" nonsense... For Christ's sake, TURN OFF THE FOX NEWS ONCE IN A WHILE!

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey, it isn't necessarily "nonsense" just because you don't like the sound of it, or because it doesn't fit your particular worldview.

      Delete
    2. Oh, c'mon. These are bogeyman-level arguments. The 9th Circuit isn't the 9th Plane of Liberal Hell. It's one thing when some pundit or politician repeats sound-bites over and over, but when it's regular folks? That's soma, man.

      JMJ

      Delete
  15. Yeah Right, they should have voted for that Piece of Lying, Crooked, Crap, so that SHE could take more money from those Rag Heads who throw GAYS off of Roof Tops

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, lets hope more LGBT activists like you keep reminding us of the horrors of theocracy and primitive tribalism! Thank you. :)

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Micturia Gabinetto said

      It is the Moslems who are subject to tyrannical theocracies with their sharia law and to primitive tribalism with their barbaric treatment of women and children today not the Christians. Moslem authorities torture and kill anyone who doesn't conform to sharia law. They tie gay people up, then toss them off the roofs of tall buildings or tie them up and topple heavy stone walls over on them, then let them slowly die in agony if they survive the fall or being buried alive under piles of rubble. Christian fundies may be narrow-minded and ignorant, but I've never heard of any Christians in today's world who do violence in the name of Christ like they Moslems do in the name of Allah.

      So thank you for giving a good argument on behalf of banning Moslem immigration to the USA, ehther you meant to or not.

      Delete
    3. Ms. Gabinetto, your presence here lends a distinct advantage to this blog. I hope you will visit us frequently.

      Thanks for your wit and thougtfulness.

      Delete
    4. It's all temporal and relative, Micturia. We're not going to get them to treat each other better by so cynically mocking them. It's great that people call out barbarism and theocracy, but don't pretend we're all that much better. Just 75 years ago we Christians murdered millions of each other and Jews and Gypsies and gays, etc, and Christianity itself played a huge historic role in all that, especially the Holocaust.

      Look at this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html?_r=0

      That's today (well, 2016 anyway).

      Muslims are a very small minority in America. Our main immigration sources in recent years has been from Latin America and East and South Asia, the Pacific Rim. We've been very good at handling terrorism on our soil. We should be very proud of our law enforcement in particular when it comes to that. They may have been a little lax or out of the loop before 9/11, but wow have they gotten good at it these days.

      Europe is another matter. Their main immigration source has long been North Africa, the Middle East and India. They have very old business ties to those parts of the world. That's why the sudden influx of Muslims there from the war zones - they already had family or friends or other connections in Europe. That's not the case here.

      We can manage the few refugees who have connections here. It's the right thing to do. I see no need for this ban.

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. Micturia Gabinetto said

      JMJ, You have constructed a worldview that makes you feel comfortable and righteous possibly even noble. Unfortunately, your understanding of the world bears little or no resemblance to reality. You live in a self-imposed vacuum because it makes you feel better, but it is a cocoon you have spun around yourself that ognores and excludes too much. This cocoon only gives you an illusion of security that will not protect you if push ever comes to shove.

      Delete
    6. Well, I didn't know I was blogging with a psychiatrist! Tell me, was it my mother? Did she smother me too much?

      I've been around a lot more than most people. I'm a realist. That's why I make real arguments, as opposed to diverting from the subject at hand with ad hominem silliness. I walked the streets of some of the toughest neighborhoods in NYC, New Jersey, and Los Angeles back when crime is double what it is today. I still have the same baseball bat I've been sleeping with since I was teenager, which is when, by the way, I hit the streets. I understand how really dangerous the world can be, and what is real danger, and what is divisive political BS.

      JMJ

      Delete
  16. Well, consider that 80% + pf the 9th circuit gets over-turned by the SC, and that one of the recent SC judge appointees, one sotomajor had 65% of her decisions that were appealed to the SC overturned, now the * is on the SC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By your logic, only "conservative" opinions are correct. If you look at Sotomayor's record (just wiki it), you'll see she's pretty by-the-law. Do you have an example of an overturned decision in any of these cases? Of Sotomayor's or the 9th Circuit? Maybe I could better see why you think this is so.

      JMJ

      Delete
  17. Micturia Gabinetto said

    As usual itepends on what sources you want to quote:

    Sotomayor Reversed 60% by High Court

    by Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, May 27, 2009

    With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

    Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

    “Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

    But opponents have an uphill battle.


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    FactCheck.org reports:

    Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?

    A: Of the [five] majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of them have been overturned by the Supreme Court....

    Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That’s a reversal rate of 1.3 percent.

    But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent....

    In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

    In two of the three Sotomayor reversals, at least some of the more liberal justices dissented, agreeing with her holding....

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Notice how both sources use actual facts to support the impression they want the readers to accept as competely true.

    The media always plays versions of the old shell game like this all the time. So people are always able to find plenty of statistics to support their own bias while never confronting the whole picture. Slanted coverage is the only kind you're going to get, so naturally people choose the news that slants in the direction they favor.

    There is no truth in media- only selected facts and factoids that support biases. Leftist pubications (about 90% of the maunstream media) naturally favor the Left, while Conservative sources naturally favor their point of view. The whole truth and nothing but the truth always seems to get lost in the shuggle.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Ms. Gabinetto, for your highly astute, well-phrased analysis.

      Delete
  18. A little late getting back here to respond to comments about as to whether our system "stinks."

    There were this warning early on about our system:

    18.1 Judicial Despotism

    "The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

    "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

    "In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

    "This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, AOW. Thomas Jefferson was the most brilliant and far seeing of all the Founders. I've rarely read anything he wrote with which I could find myself in disagreement.

      Delete
  19. Nevertheless, as true as those may be it remains that our system continues to be better than the rest.

    At the heart of this is the age old strict constructionist versus living document argument.

    And life goes on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you never tire of stating truisms and platitudes?

      Have you no thoughts or perceptions of your own to share?

      Delete
    2. Yes. I perceive a nation built on great principles by gloriously liberal revolutionaries to be going to hell in a hand baket.

      Jefferson was brilliant because he was indeed forward thinking. Not a stale stand pat dude at all. Nor do I perceive he ever had any desire to go backwards or embrace authoritarianism.

      Delete
    3. You have made a strawman argument against a self-concocted villain of your vain, politically-motivated imaginings.

      Delete
  20. This Is How I feelMarch 19, 2017 at 10:51 AM

    Just how un-American can you be? One would think that the last election had taught us a lesson.. That, in spite of their efforts and fund-raising, etc. the Progressives, Liberals, and those on the fence pretty much rejected the flawed candidate, and voted for Donald Trump because the Most people I know, voted for Donald Trump, and against Hillary Clinton to preserve the United States of America and not to allow our country to sink any further than it already has

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just how in-American can you be?

    Who is in-American? Do tell.

    Is it questioning the government or is it only when it's a gogovernment you like that it is in-American?

    Patriotism requires questioning your government. Always. Regardless which party or agenda is in power. Doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Legitimate, reponsibly phrased QUESTIONING is fine –– as long as you are willing to LISTEN POLITELY, QUIETLY and ATTENTIVELY to the answers you may receive. Incessant, rude heckling, badgering, disruption and attempts to shout down and stifle opinions you don't care to hear for whatefer reason is NOT all right. PERIOD!

      If you don't understand –– and RESPECT –– the difference between the two approaches, you ought to be treated as the wayard CHILD you are –– no matter what your chronological age might be.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TOM,

      How many tumes do I have to tell you that we do NOT accept BOILERPLATE here, unless it happens to address the topic of the post, and even then we much prefer honest attempts at sparking DIALOGUE instead of thundering pontification. In other words please try to talk WITH us and not AT us. There is a great deal of difference between the two.

      Your latest 'speech" had absolutely nothing to do with the problem of Judicial Overreach, Judicial Activism and Legislating from the Bench that defies and denies the structures of the Constittution and supplants the Rule of Law with the Rule of the Whims and Caprices of JUDGES.

      THAT is what we are SUPPOSED to be discussing on THIS thread.

      I'd be delighted to hear any opinons you may have on THAT subject.

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      Delete
  24. Our real problem as I see it is we'll just keep electing the same sort of unqualified folks all the time. Folks just like the folks we know next door and sown the street. Folks who start out with honorable intentions and begin by doing what is right then something happens. The system corrupts them and they become just like the politicians my grandparents seam to complain about.

    Trump (and HRC) are part of the system we complain about. Trump has used and benefited by it and HRC has helped perpetuate it. We need a multi arty system to replace our duopoly political system that supports and encourages what we see today. Thats why I recommend voting for the Libertarian whenever they run.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fine, fine, fine, but how does your comment relate to the problem of uncinstitutional Judicial Activism?

      By the way, as long as you brought it up, peope who are able to USE existing systems –– no matter how inane, banal, or corrupt –– and make them work to personal ADVANTAGE –– are wholly LAUDABLE –– as long as they work within the confines of existing Law.

      President Trump is just such a person, and that is precisely why he has drawn such wide popular support, and why he became our president.

      Delete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      Delete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      Delete
  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

      Delete
  28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why are you liberals that promised to leave the country if Donald Trump was Elected still here, if you are so unhappy?"

      Nobody wants us anymore! Maybe we should take the hint and stop meddling in everyone's business.

      And that last paragraph of yours - it would do you conservatives a lot of good to try, just try, to recognize irony and hypocrisy once in a blue moon.

      JMJ

      Delete
  29. COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    ReplyDelete
  30. COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    COMMENTS UNRELATED to the TOPIC of the POST are SUBJECT to DELETION

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.