« a disgrace of labor | Main | of pottery and willow »

Saturday, 28 August 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Well, what can you expect from a people who dat "deep-fried food and the cows sculpted out of butter?" The Washington Post set the stage in the first paragraph, didn't they.

I'm not sure how I feel about all of this. Like in our school system, we have judges who've been taught by liberal indoctrination and we're struggling with their biases as we also struggle with teachers rewriting history to our kids; the Constitution doesn't seem to matter anymore than historical facts do; only the leftwing agenda matters because political correctness is more important than decency and THE LAW, which is a very dangerous way to go.

Would I say that the rightwing judges seem to stick to the constitution better? I'd like to think so. Would I applaud voting judges out for unpopular decisions? Not so much.
I'll be eager to come back and see others' comments...
very thought provoking post! Glad you're back!


This is a thought-provoking post, Heidi. Let us examine this question: to whom or what are our judges primarily responsible?

I believe that even though people may elect state judges, while it is true voters can dismiss them, a wise judge must not allow the passion of politics or the emotion of religion to deter him from the principles of the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution.

Within the Constitution, we find the God-given imperative, “All men are created equal.” However, before we debate the merits of the laws of Abraham or Mosaic Law —before our passions become inflamed, let us recall the words of Jesus as communicated to us in the New Testament:

“Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the Prophets.” —Matthew 22:37—40.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are God’s.” —Matthew 22:21.

The question involves maintaining judicial good faith with the law —our Constitution. All laws must at all times pertain equally to all men. God will ultimately judge mankind for his wickedness. The task of our courts is not to prevent wickedness, for even when we punish a man for murder he must still account to God for his sin. No, the purpose of our courts is to safeguard every man and woman’s right to make a poor decision. Otherwise, we emulate the faith and mentality of Moslems, preventing men and women the right of self-determination.

Always On Watch

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government...."

It surely didn't turn out that way, did it? In fact, the judiciary has turned out to be the sleeping tiger!

Judges have been driven to advance their societal and political agenda -- never mind the Constitution.

heidianne jackson

z, you said "Would I applaud voting judges out for unpopular decisions? Not so much."

i wouldn't necessarily want judges being voted out of office for unpopular decisions, but what about for decisions that have no basis in the constitution - whether its the state or federal constitution? should we just give the judges a pass because we don't want to risk getting rid of a judge just because he isn't liked?

how would that differ from a congressman or senator, then? should we just continue to give all of them a free pass because it doesn't really matter if they're adhering to the constitution?

heidianne jackson

mustang, you are absolutely right that "...the purpose of our courts is to safeguard every man and woman’s right to make a poor decision." and that is what natural law gives to us. and precisely what "positive" law renders impossible.

where is the equal protection in the law with affirmative action or "hate" laws? where is the equal protection in the confiscatory taxes currently in force in our country? how about the health care bill?

when judges allow these "laws" to stand and shoot down laws that do not interfere with the equal protection clause, how are they different than any other politician?


Heidianne, one could certainly argue gay marriage, for example, in the constitution. Nowhere does it say "two men can't marry"... There are other subjects that are not as clearly defined as we'd like. That's all I'm saying.

heidianne jackson

but, z, marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution at all. in fact, marriage IS limited BY LAW in every state in the union. it is a states' rights issue and not a federal issue - if we were talking about a federal amendment for marriage being shot down, i'd be right there. not because it violates an equal protection clause, but because it isn't an issue that federal government has any business regulating. if limiting marriage to a man and a woman hinders equal protection, then there should be no limits allowed on marriage.

the fact is that marriage is a religious contract, not a government contract. personally, i think the way around all this "marriage" stuff is to ONLY recognize civil unions at the government level and allow people to register their union as a marriage with their church or temple of choice. that is the way it's handled in several countries and it's really the only "fair" way to do things.

that way, we're not redefining words that have existed forever and we're not offending peoples' religious sensibilities. AND it removes a VERY LARGE arguing point for the left.


I agree that marriage is a state regulated issue, but at the same time, Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution (known as the full faith and credit clause) requires that states respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.

Thus, we cannot say the federal government has no interest in this issue. This issue first came up with regard to mixed marriages. At one time, state law prohibited the intermarriage of blacks and whites, and some may even have prohibited the marriages of whites and Asians. Now the issue is homosexual marriages, but the principles are the same. If MA allows homosexual marriage, the VT must recognize that marriage even if the state of VT prohibits the marriage of queer men and women. Like the proverbial chain, the weakest link defines its overall strength.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner