MyFox
 

LQQKING's Newsroom

by LQQKING from Orlando Florida

Last Post 9 hours Ago


High-Stakes Courts

SOURCE:The Conservative Voice

By Thomas Sowell

Recent landmark court decisions are reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a few years.

 

The judges that elected officials put on the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them have served their terms and passed from the scene.

The Supreme Court recently created a new "right" out of thin air for captured enemy soldiers and terrorists-- the right to seek release in the federal courts, something that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention provided.

The High Court has also struck down gun control laws as violations of the Second Amendment. Whatever the legal merits or the policy merits of that decision, it is a major change, created by judges.

The point here is that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, wield enormous-- and growing-- power. What that means is that when we vote for the candidates who will nominate and confirm judges, we are making decisions not only for ourselves but for generations yet unborn.

Recent momentous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by 5 to 4 votes, including the votes of justices appointed by presidents who are no longer living-- Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan.

Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court-- justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.

Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.

In a year when dissatisfaction has been expressed by both Democrats and Republicans with the presidential candidates chosen by their own parties, it is worth keeping in mind the high stakes involved in judicial appointments-- and therefore in presidential elections.

This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.

There will be a president chosen this November, and he will appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, regardless of whether you stay home or go to the polls.

His choices for the High Court will have a major impact on history, whether you vote after a sober consideration of many facts or vote on the basis of the candidate's rhetoric, style or demographics.

Even more important than the particular issues that courts will decide is the more fundamental issue of what a judge's role is in our system of Constitutional government.

In the gun control decision, for example, there were justices who read the history and meaning of the Second Amendment differently. What was most dangerous, however, was Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion that it was up to judges to weigh and "balance" the pros and cons of gun control laws.

If we have Constitutional rights only when judges like the end results, we may as well not have a Constitution.

Is the right to free speech to be put aside, and a journalist put behind bars, whenever a judge thinks that journalist went "too far" in expressing an opinion about some politician or bureaucrat?

Is someone to be tried over again for the same crime, even after having been acquitted, if judges regard the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy as just a suggestion to be weighed and "balanced?"

We have already seen what happens when a 5 to 4 majority decides that politicians can seize your home and give it to somebody else, if judges don't think your property rights "balance" whatever politicians choose to call "the public interest."

When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next 4 years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation.

18 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 18
Page 1 of 1
Meb452m read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 10:28 PM

I had heard a rather unpleasant rumor in reguards to this issue. It was that Obama, if elected, would offer a Supreme Court bench to Hillary. I really don't believe this senario to be a good one. Hear of any of this LQQKING ?

LQQKING read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 1:13 AM

Yeah It's a kind of under the surface rumor right now..............an awfull lot of things have to go horribley wrong for it to come to pass

If you read me very often you know I am not a McCain fan at all....but he has promised strict constructionalists for the bench ..........remember 4 of the Supreme Court Justices Held that the second ammendment did not mean what it so clearly says

Twizlled read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 9:53 AM

All the more reason the public needs to be aware of Judges rulings, and actions. If we elect judges that are more to the publics interest, there wouldnt be any "misguided" judges left to appoint.

LQQKING read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 10:22 AM

Twizlled
One of the problems is that we do not elect all the judges. Federal Judges are appointed for life by the President. This gives them NO REASON to give a Damn what the people think. Hard as this may be to believe this is a good thing in relation to any single decision they may have to make.On the other hand these decisions are the rules upon which you are allowed to live your life.That being the case you want Judges that basically agree with your opinions.

The only defense we have is to elect a President whose beliefs we are sure of before the appointment is made

Twizlled read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 10:30 AM

Hard to elect a president that "we" believe in, when there are no picks!
Where on earth do they find our nominated officials? Who makes those decisions? Maybe thats where we should start.
I am so ready to see some heads roll.

TAllen read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 2:02 PM

LQQKING, Have you actually read the courts findings on Boumediend vs Bush? What about their findings on the gun control issue? While I don't disagree (I was the one that originally raised this issue her) with your views that we need to be very conscious of who we place in office and the impact they can have on the SC, at the same time I am seeing a lot of people making comments based on what they have seen or read in the news concerning some of these court decisons without taking the time to read the actually findings. Then like with so many issues we can not excuse the "emotional" response as opposed to the "legal response" we are seeing simply because "we" dont' agree with the findings.

Emotion has no place in the law and it NEVER should have.

Yes, we DO need to be thoughtful when electing this next president. Yes, we need to be watchful over the SC and their abilities to "interpet" the CONSTITUTION but we also must understand those findings based on facts and not just what WE think they should mean.

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 6:33 PM

By “interpretation” you mean change and by Change you mean the turning of this country into something that it is not ...your emotionless perfect Law has just found that ALL human beings all over the world have the same rights as loyal American citizens that single finding will fundamentally change this country forever ...and quit frankly I can find no evidence that any nation has ever survived this kind of strategy for more than a few years...by not rewarding loyalty or protecting the rights of loyal citizens above others we have just been lowered along with all of our lofty ideas to a place beneath all other nations. They still have laws that protect their people above foreigners but we now do not!
Our court system can now be used against US but only against us and no one els ! Yea great “interpreting” there guys lets all have a BIG round of applause for this bunch of “globalists” !

Meb452m read my blog
Jul 2, 2008 | 8:35 PM

Thanks for your time LQQKING ! I'm not a McCain fan either, but there is no other choice, sadly I might add. And even THEN, there will be PROBLEMS !

TAllen read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 9:06 PM

No RNC by "interpretation" I mean just that and it is clear that you have not read the findings or if you did you didn't understand them. It DOES NOT find all human beings all over the world have the same rights but it does stipulate that PRISIONER being held by the US for an extended length of time, DO have the right to equal and fair disclosure, the right to request the chance to examine evidence against them and the right to have their cases heard in a timely manner (in a nut shell so to speak)as it pertains to the 8th and 14th ammendments. They did not change the ammendments they applied them to the situation. This is exactly the type of "hysteria" that could be avoided if people just took the time to READ.

Your comment that somehow we no longer have laws that protect our citizen over foreigners is just ridiculous.

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 10:13 PM

..O but you are forgetting to state that they have been granted access to an American court not a military court or the international court but access to the USA's justice system and all that goes with it...now soldiers are going to have to be trained in police work , they will need to collect evidence ant take time off from combat to fly here to testify or els the people we are currently talking about will be free to go right back where they where ...

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 10:15 PM

If this is such a “great idea” then where we monster for the way we treated German combatants we captured in WW-II ? Was it wrong not to give every one of them a day in court BEFORE the war was over ? What is different now ?

LQQKING read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 12:44 AM

Anybody want to take bets that the prisoner capture rate goes through the floor?

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 1:00 AM

Sure it will but now its all going to be “catch and release”, just like we do with violent criminals pedophiles ! LOL

TAllen read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 12:13 PM

RNC again your letting your emotions rule your head. They are entitled to the US Court system ONLY after the Military Tribunal has rendered a verdict at which point if they become prisoners like all others they are then entitled to ALL the means of legal address.

As for the german combatants in WWII who knows what the high court would have found had the same issue been presented then. Just because it was not done in the past does not mean and never will that is should not be done now!

The main issue for dissention was that the Militay was now going to have to be accountable for the length of time it was taking to handle these cases in a military court because in essence they were being given the right to a "speedy trial". And don't kid your self RNC some of the best damn attorneys around are MILITARY attorneys!

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 12:27 PM

So we will have to disagree on this one , you firmly believe that changing the way we fight forever and binding our hands (and only our hands) is a good thing. You say this question was not asked in the past and expect me to skip over the question of why? Why has NO country ever forced its army to treat the enemy like citizens of that country who have committed a crime.
You keep saying that I am working from emotion as if that nullifies the subject or gives strength to pour politically motivated idea about the SC over ruling the military permanently....
Long before you try to tell me why people who kill Americans should have 4 and 8 amendment rights could you back up and read the first few lines to me again ? Does it now read “The Constitution OF all the people of the World” ?

TAllen read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 10:23 PM

Yes we can disagree on this one RNC because you firmly believe that Military should have no accountability, you refuse to understand that the SC does not "expand",change or alter the Constitution it mearly applies the Constitution they way it was written even if you don't like it. And that the 8th and 14th amendments are as they are. Why has no one challenge them in this issue before, simply because the situation was differnt as was the question being asked.

People who kill Americans come in all colors, sizes and cultures including AMERICAN. Do you really want to restrict the rights of EVERYONE or just those you don't like??

RNC08 read my blog view my photos
Jul 4, 2008 | 8:51 AM

...and I see on the national news that you are SO RIGHT , I am just responding to fear RE: the first round of GITMO detainees to be processed by our court system will now be released in this country! Thats right 38 detainees are now headed for the streets of the USA ! As predicted the army “failed” to collect evidence against them and they are not native to Iraq so for fear that they could face prosecution if returned to Iraq they WILL be released in this country...GOOD JOB Tallen ! The constitution is now exactly what the founders intended a constraint on the US army right?

TAllen read my blog view my photos
Jul 4, 2008 | 1:59 PM

Well RNC if the Army "failed" to collect the required evidence against them then like it our not they should not be detained. I bet if you were arrested and placed in jail for 6 years with no evidence of your guilt you would be screaming at the top of your lungs and DEMANDING to be released. Like I said LAWS apply to EVERYONE not just those you don't like.

Am I happy that these people will be here. NO absolutly not and the should be closely monitored, but I also understand that is not anyones fault but the ARMY'S at this point. They had 6 years to find evidence but failed!
The SC did its job regardless of what your personal abilities to understand what their rulings mean and for that I am thankful.

So on this point I will agree to disagree. Have a happy 4th.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




LQQKING

I'm a pretty normal guy. A conservative and a bit old fashioned. Ready to change my mind if presented with verifiable facts to justify doing so...............A U.S. Navy veteran of the Viet Nam Era ( No In-Country Service ) I find my mind tends toward practical Solutions. My reason for posting is to call attention to the things I think are important.I normally read between 7-9 news sources a day so I rarely will compose my own items preferring to take advantage of the enormous availability of public sources.If you do not care to read the LOOOOOOONG Posts then by all means don't do so . There's not much annoys me as much as an unsubstantiated accusation or an unverified claim.............. If your only argument consists of a pocket full of I wishes and a basket full of it ought to be's or If your strategy is to change the subject or make personal attacks because of your inability to argue the merits. Please do everyone a favor and sit down and shut up, or post to the entertainment blog where such tactics belong...................
...............I would urge you to remember that The politicians work for you......................
..... I believe that the campaign contribution system is nothing less then Legalized Bribery. It is after all, An elected Official accepting Cash from a citizen (although I must concede that every one of the politicians will swear to you that people do it expecting no payback. wink, wink, nod, nod) Good Governance from our employees will only be achieved when Politicians fear for their continued employment more than they lust after Campaign Contributions

Member Since: 3/20/2007