• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

It is my opinion that one of the greatest failures of the U.S. Senate for the past hundred years is their refusal to remove federal judges from the bench – including Supreme Court Justices – who bend and twist the Constitution to appease their masters or support their own political agenda.

With Bush returning to the White House and Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s newly disclosed cancer treatment, much speculation is under way as to whether or not Bush will nominate a “conservative” judge to the court should Rehnquist retire. Based on Bush’s own words, it’s “iffy.” In debate three on Oct. 13, 2004, when asked if Bush would overturn Roe v. Wade, Bush responded, “What [Kerry's] asking me is if I will have a litmus test for my judges – no, I will have no litmus test.”

 

Speaking of the Supreme Court, except for a small percentage of Americans, the decision in Lawrence v. Texas (decided June 26, 2003) hardly made a ripple with the tens of millions of Americans who live in their own little comfort zones, far removed from the destruction being dished out by federal courts all across this country. In Lawrence v. Texas, the question to the court was due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment regarding a Texas statute that made it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate conduct (sodomy).

In her opinion, Justice O’Connor did not deny that homosexuality is a voluntarily chosen “lifestyle” –a startling admission. In his highly acclaimed work, “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary,” legal scholar and constitutional attorney, Dr. Edwin Vieira sums up the Lawrence decision:

 

Rather the majority opinion in Lawrence “effectively decrees the end of all legislation” based on morals of any kind. For if morality cannot be invoked as a legitimate basis for legislation in a sexual-morality case, how can it be invoked in any other? Surely the particular area of conduct to which We the People address their moral judgments cannot determine the constitutional outcome.

Thus, perforce of Lawrence, in the future to constitute “due process of law” as a basis for limiting “liberty,” all legislation must be amoral – that is, all legislation must demonstrably serve some goal other than a concededly moral one. A “wall of separation” between morality and state must be thrown up and maintained.

Therefore, the Lawrence majority’s repudiation of the history of Western civilization and Christian moral and ethical standards amounted to repudiation of the Declaration of Independence and consequently the Constitution, and consequently again, the justices’ own authority – further proof that whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

 

In the Lawrence decision, the Supreme Court not only came up with one of the most convoluted, toxic decisions of the past century, it went much deeper than that. This was an all out attack on states’ rights. This decision was so putrid, it should have caused a massive uproar from every Christian, minister, pastor and priest in this country and demand for removal of half the U.S. Supreme Court. The silence has been deafening. This decision not only bodes something akin to a death knell for America’s moral foundation, the injection of international law into America’s judicial system has set an unbelievably dangerous precedent.

The “wall of separation” brings up another abomination hallucinated by a Supreme Court in the Everson v. Board of Education decision [330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)] and demonstrates how the 14th Amendment was used to gut the First Amendment. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court:

 

The New Jersey statute is challenged as a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the 14th, commands that a state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

 

The 14th Amendment states in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” The 1947 Supreme Court took the position that our freedom to worship is a privilege, not a God-given right. We can all see the disastrous, long-term affects of that decision.

One other myth that needs to be addressed: Where did this “life-time appointment” designation come from regarding federal judges? I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports life-time appointments, never to be removed regardless of how destructive their decisions are to we the people.

Is there a remedy? America just re-elected (with the exception of a few new faces) the same Senate that refuses to impeach bad federal judges. With the feminization of the U.S. Senate and its past history in my lifetime, only a massive outcry by the people of this country will get corrupt and politically correct federal judges (including Supreme Court Justices) off the bench.

The question is: Do enough Americans care about this vitally important issue or will “Desperate Housewives” and “WWF Smackdown” continue to hold their attention?

 

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.