Tuesday, March 01, 2005

SCOTUS Notes

Today the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for juvenile killers. This decision is yet another example of why judicial nominations are so crucial to this country's future. Hugh Hewitt weighs in:

So Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris would not have been eligible for the death penalty? That's right. No matter what anyone under 18 does, they cannot be executed. Not mass murderers. Not terrorists one day shy of 18. Absurd.

We all know that the U.S. Constitution states that the executive branch of our government (the president) gets to appoint federal judges and supreme court justices. And the legislative branch (the senate) is supposed to give an up or down vote to those nominees, with a simple majority needed for confirmation. I know this is Civics 101, but it's all related, so hopefully I will do the topic some justice (no pun intended).

A copy of the Constitution is found here, check out Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (emphasis mine):

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Today we have a situation where the minority party is blocking some of the president's judicial nominees via an obscure procedural technicality. The Democrats have taken it upon themselves to alter 200 years of history and they now want a 60-vote "super majority" to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, rather than the standard 51-vote Senate majority. This new "requirement" started, coincidentally I'm sure, ahem, only after the Democrats lost control of the Senate.

Electing true conservatives to the legislative branch (and the executive branch) is necessary for a bunch of practical reasons, most notably national defense and lower taxes. But it is also necessary in order to prevent (or at least stem the tide of) judicial activism, one of the biggest problems facing our country today (assuming, of course, that strict constructionist judges would be sent up from a conservative president and senate).

To prevent weak-kneed and "progressive" judicial appointments, we cannot allow Democrats to be elected to any federal office. It's that simple. The issue of gay marriage is being pushed, not by the citizens of this country demanding the federal government recognize and endorse homosexual relationships, but by activist judges consciously thwarting the will of the people. Somewhere between 70-80% of the citizenry do not agree that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, but nevermind that. Five judges in Massachusetts know better than 225 million red-state idiots.

Forget about how you feel about any particular issue, I'm talking about how our laws are created and implemented. Ask yourself if our country's system is government is set up for a few elites to decide for the entire country what is best (hint: it's not). Likewise with today's SCOTUS decision, a few activist judges are deciding for all of us what moral values we are to embrace.

The Democrats are nothing more than a group of obstructionist politicians and activists and they are no longer able to rule by legislative majorities. They have cleverly retaken control of government, however, a right normally lost when your party is systematically voted out of office. By having unelected (read: unaccountable) judges create laws and read non-existent "rights" into the constitution, voting becomes pointless.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?