Should leftwing activist judges, who misuse the courts to create new law not justified under the Constitution, be removed from office as unfit to hold the office of a judge?
tncdel
2011/06/28 15:37:31
SLIDESHOW: This is but one example of many.
1 of 1
Leftwing activist judge lets illegals who invaded AZ rancher to sue him for making citizen's arrest!
Should leftwing activist judges, who misuse the courts to create new law not justified under the Constitution, be removed from office as unfit to hold the office of a judge?
|
|
|||||
|
45 votes
|
|
90% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
10% | |||
As examples of what I mean, leftwing activist federal judges, including justices on the Supreme Court, have been systematically granting rights to illegal aliens that they do NOT possess under the Constitution.
Illegal aliens are NOT the "We the People" intended by our Constitution, and the constitutions of Mexico, etc. have no jurisdiction here. Accordingly, the illegals are NOT constitutionally eligible to receive Due Process or any other constitutional rights. All they are entitled to receive is SUMMARY JUSTICE, same as military tribunals dispense to captured enemies.
And the only constitutional basis for allowing an illegal alien court access is for immigration proceedings.
Therefore, no federal or state court in the United States has jurisdiction to entertain lawsuits by illegal aliens against our citizens and infrastructure. Yet that's exactly what leftwing activist judges have been allowing illegal aliens to do!
In an 1981 case captioned as Plyler v. Doe [that should have never been allowed to be proceed in the first place, for lack of jurisdiction], leftwing activist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court itself overrode the Conservative justices who followed the Constitution, by a 5-4 ruling that illegal aliens in California are constitutionally entitled to the same access to education as the students of our own citizens.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
And in many other cases since then, other leftwing activist judges have been granting illegal aliens rights they do not possess under the Constitution. Even allowing them to file lawsuits against our own citizens and awarding them damages from the defendant U.S. citizens!
This blatant judicial abuse by leftwing activist judges needs to be curtailed by removal of all judges who refuse to abide by our Constitution.
If leftwingers complain that Conservative judges are activists too, that objection can be eliminated simply by enforcing compliance with the Constitution. So that, regardless of political leanings, the same criteria are applied.
Do you agree that all leftwing activist judges, or other activist judge, who refuses to comply with the Constitution should be removed from office as unfit to be a judge?
Illegal aliens are NOT the "We the People" intended by our Constitution, and the constitutions of Mexico, etc. have no jurisdiction here. Accordingly, the illegals are NOT constitutionally eligible to receive Due Process or any other constitutional rights. All they are entitled to receive is SUMMARY JUSTICE, same as military tribunals dispense to captured enemies.
And the only constitutional basis for allowing an illegal alien court access is for immigration proceedings.
Therefore, no federal or state court in the United States has jurisdiction to entertain lawsuits by illegal aliens against our citizens and infrastructure. Yet that's exactly what leftwing activist judges have been allowing illegal aliens to do!
In an 1981 case captioned as Plyler v. Doe [that should have never been allowed to be proceed in the first place, for lack of jurisdiction], leftwing activist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court itself overrode the Conservative justices who followed the Constitution, by a 5-4 ruling that illegal aliens in California are constitutionally entitled to the same access to education as the students of our own citizens.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
And in many other cases since then, other leftwing activist judges have been granting illegal aliens rights they do not possess under the Constitution. Even allowing them to file lawsuits against our own citizens and awarding them damages from the defendant U.S. citizens!
This blatant judicial abuse by leftwing activist judges needs to be curtailed by removal of all judges who refuse to abide by our Constitution.
If leftwingers complain that Conservative judges are activists too, that objection can be eliminated simply by enforcing compliance with the Constitution. So that, regardless of political leanings, the same criteria are applied.
Do you agree that all leftwing activist judges, or other activist judge, who refuses to comply with the Constitution should be removed from office as unfit to be a judge?
Top Opinion
-
YES, any activist judge/justice who refuse to comply with the Constitution sh...
Judges have been doing this since the country was founded because a judge literally serves as an interpretive enforcement element of the law. The law is written but rarely is it defined and as times change, the circumstances the laws were created to address change... laws become obsolete and to enforce them requires 100% interpretation since we won't remove them.
In fact, legislators create so many damn laws without removing the ones they're supposed to revise or change that you can have a hundred different laws addressing the same issue. Lawyers take advantage of this because they know a layman like you or me don't have the time or patience to spend weeks, months or years to sort through this mess... this is why we pay lawyers to do this for us.
Judges likewise have to sort through this and many of them simply won't do it... they let the two lawyers do all the work and then either choose a side or make a decision based on their own vie...
Judges have been doing this since the country was founded because a judge literally serves as an interpretive enforcement element of the law. The law is written but rarely is it defined and as times change, the circumstances the laws were created to address change... laws become obsolete and to enforce them requires 100% interpretation since we won't remove them.
In fact, legislators create so many damn laws without removing the ones they're supposed to revise or change that you can have a hundred different laws addressing the same issue. Lawyers take advantage of this because they know a layman like you or me don't have the time or patience to spend weeks, months or years to sort through this mess... this is why we pay lawyers to do this for us.
Judges likewise have to sort through this and many of them simply won't do it... they let the two lawyers do all the work and then either choose a side or make a decision based on their own views.
It's the ultimate God role where you get to decide the fate of others and as for the Constitution... it might be better asked if our laws themselves are in line with the Constitution as many aren't.
Remember that case a while back with the Louisiana judge who refused to marry interracial couples?
There's your proof how much power the judges have but this guy was a rightwinger.
Political ideology has nothing to do with it... it's abuse of power and the judges need to be reviewed on a regular bases to see if they are in line with the law or making decisions on their own. Left right or center... all judges need to be brought up on review every year to determine where cases should be re evaluated and abuses result in removal from the bench if they become more than what might be considered normal.
Like we are seeing in England and elsewhere, the people do have power over the courts where judges are abusing their power... but that is limited because the community does not dictate the law. We saw what happens there when white supremists controlled the country and communities were literally killing people with no law enforcement or judiciary to stop it.
But there is a tremendous problem with judges in the USA violating the laws they were put in power to enforces.
The case in point illustrated here is one of them as US federal and state law give you the right to protect your property against trespassing. In this case, the farmer didn't harm anyone and seems to have complied completely with the law. The judge in this case is the perfect example of a judge out of control and not obeying the law... and if he is, then the law itself is not in complience with the Constitution and should be struck down.
from corporate interests. The little tiff in Arizona will have little to no significant effect on the lives of more than a handful (those who would wish to make a "citizen's arrest" of a suspected illegal immigrant). But, the Supreme Court decision by the "conservative coalition of corporate cons" will affect all of us until it is overturned, or we all surrender whatever is left of our personal assets to Bank of America, CitiCorp, and Wall Street's many interests.
You raise an interesting issue, but used the wrong example of where judicial activists really have an effect on our lives. You are now owned, stamped, and identified, as an asset of the monied interests that can present to you a slate of candidates they have selected, just as if you were a voter in Iraq, Iran, or Russia. Congratulations on your taking notice of these matters.
Every justice has their own set of ideologies, biases, and prejudices. Two of the biggest partisan hacks on the court, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (both Republicans) are wildly ideologically biased, and yet they are never labeled as “activist judges.” Thomas was the only one of the nine justices who wanted to throw out Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as an unconstitutional intrusion on states’ rights. Scalia is pretty slick when he claims to strictly adhere to the original word but creatively interprets the arcane language of the Constitution as he did in District of Columbia v Heller.
" Activist" has become a political buzzword for any judge... Dem or Repub... who makes an unpopular decision. Currently the Roberts Court is following in the footsteps of the most activist Court in the nation’s history, the Rehnquist Court. The unpopular “Citizens United” decision proves that.
.