RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Courts’ Category

Special Free study course #8

16 Oct

One of the biggest problems today, second only to the loss of our value for life, stems from the loss of our God-given concept of justice for all and the rise of the man-centered concept of survival of the fittest.

We are offering our course on Christian Values-Rule of Law for free for a limited time. The coupon is good until October 26 to the first 100 who sign up at https://www.udemy.com/course/christian-values-rule-of-law/?couponCode=7019EA9

 

Violence and Social Strife-D-O

30 Aug

It really made no difference whether the police officer in Minnesota was guilty or not because the verdict was already determined before the trial started. Maxine Waters called for riots in the streets if the officers were cleared so the jury knew their only choice was to convict them or face more rioting. The officers never had a chance for a fair trial. We have to decide whether we want a country ruled by law and justice or one ruled by mob rule. After the verdict, new rioting broke out even though the officers were convicted and leading Democrats began calling for defunding the police. Of course cities ruled by Democrats realized they could not eliminate the police or there would not be anyone to keep order so they slashed the police budgets. Then they faced the question of where to make cuts. Since the conflict between police and Black subjects usually occurred in  Black areas, they reduced the police patrols in Black areas to reduce the chance of conflict. Since criminals no longer had to worry about police, they went on a field day and crime in Black areas exploded. Of course the victims in the Black areas were mostly Black so Black people suffered the most. Liberals just don’t seem to be able to foresee the consequences of their actions.

 

 

Violence and Social Strife-D-N

30 Aug

Democrats say they want to reduce racial discrimination by police. The media continues to play up the death of the Black man being arrested by police in Minnesota. They make him out to be an innocent bystander attacked by police, but the fact is, he had a long violent criminal record and was high on drugs at the time. We don’t know what resistance he put up before finally being subdued. The one video recording it conveniently left that out. Reports are that he didn’t die on the street but died later in the ambulance after he slipped out of his handcuffs and died of a drug-induced heart attack while making a violent attempt to escape. It is hard to make any judgement without all the facts. Our media today seems to portray what they want you to believe and leaves out a lot of facts needed to make an intelligent decision. That contrasted with a more recent incident in St Louis where a Black security officer was gunned down when he responded to an alarm at a pawn shop. He interrupted a group of looters who were in the process of looting the pawn shop and they shot him. Although he was Black and just doing his job, he lost his life, yet it was never mentioned on the media. Apparently Black lives only matter to them if they can use it to stir up social strife.

 

 

Violence and Social Strife-D-M

30 Aug

Democrats say they want to reduce mass incarceration. One way they are trying to do it is by reducing penalties for crimes. They have been dropping some minor crimes and no longer consider them crimes and reducing sentences for other crimes. In addition, they are pushing to eliminate bail so a criminal can be released without bail and still be expected to show up for his trial. That is the purpose of bail, to guarantee he will show up. All these things have not reduced the amount of people incarcerated. By letting minor criminals go with a slap on the wrist, they encourage them to commit more crimes. Punishment is supposed to make it so they don’t gain from breaking the law. When punishment is weak, they can commit the crime and put up with a little inconvenience before going out and committing more crimes. Crime has continued to rise in areas where laws are not enforced.

 

 

Courts-C-C

08 Jul

The liberals are continuing to push to subvert justice by stacking the Supreme Court. They had to back off on the addition of several justices due to the tremendous negative backlash. People were horrified that they would deliberately stack the court to get their way. However, they have not stopped their efforts to regain control of the Supreme Court. They have seen a number of their pet issues overturned and can’t wait for the conservative justices to retire. They want to regain control of the Court before the Court shoots down any more of their pet issues. They have made frivolous accusations against several conservative judges in order to discredit them and hopefully gain sympathy. While they call for the judges to be impeached, it is doubtful they could gain the support necessary. They are also calling for term limits for the judges. That would eliminate several of the conservative judges and open the way for them to appoint additional justices. Term limits would violate the Constitutional provision that the justices serve for life and would require a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution made provision for them to serve for life so Presidents would not stack the Court to approve their pet issues. Term limits would result in more rapid turnover and allow Presidents to stack the courts. The one thing the founding Fathers feared most. A Constitutional Convention would require 2/3 approval of both houses of Congress and they can’t even get a simple majority. In addition it would require approval of 3/4th of the States and they only control a few States. The States are heavily populated States so they control a lot of votes but they are concentrated in just a few States. That is why they want to do away with the Electoral College. The Electoral College guarantees that the President has broad support across the country and not just in a few States. Our country was founded on the principle that justice is blind and should apply equally to all but liberals have ignored the Constitution and State and federal laws when they prevent them from getting what they want. They have also used the FBI and Dept of Justice as well as the IRS to harass and intimidate conservatives, while turning a blind eye to crimes committed by liberals. It is time to elect representatives who will respect the law and restore justice  in America.

 

 
 

The Courts-C-B

30 Jun

Some liberals are promoting the appointment of several more liberal Supreme Justices to enable the Court to restore the right to abortion and allow them to open the door to other liberal policies which they want to enact but can not get the support in Congress to pass them into law. While the Constitution does not state how many justices there should be, it does say the justices should be appointed for life so no President can pack the Court and ram through his agenda. Most presidents only get the opportunity to appoint one or two justices, not enough to change the court unless it is closely balanced like it is now. To add a number of justices to the court solely for the purpose of ramming their agenda through the courts is an open violation of the intent of the Constitution, even though it is not stated. It is a deliberate attempt to get around the Constitution. In addition, the current liberal justices have openly ignored the Constitution in their rulings and it is fairly certain any new liberal justices would do the same. While they claim they are just using a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, their opinions, like in Roe vs  Wade, openly ignore the Constitution. Roe vs Wade was pushed through when two conservative justices were not able to attend and the ruling did not represent a majority of justices on the court.

 

 

the Courts-C-A

30 Jun

Liberals are saying it is unconstitutional to overturn Roe vs Wade. On what grounds? Nowhere in the Constitution does it declare the right of women to get a abortion. The Supreme Court also has a history of changing its decisions when new evidence is available or circumstances change. Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional to begin with. The Constitution states that all men are endowed by God with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit to happiness does not give someone the right to deprive another of the right to life and the Constitution states that the government, including the Supreme Court, can not deny anyone those rights. Its excuse was that they could not determine when life began. That is faulty thinking because if they were in doubt, they should have erred on the side of caution, lest someone deprive someone of life and violate the Constitution by mistake. The Supreme Court stated that if it was ever determined when life began, that the ruling would be null and void. A majority of States at that time had defined an unborn baby as a person with rights and so according to the Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court decision was null and void in those States. However, the pro-abortion people used the Supreme Court ruling as an excuse to violate those laws and claim exemption from prosecution. They said the Supreme Court ruling overturned those laws, but the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn lawfully enacted State laws unless they violate the Constitution, which they did not. In addition, the pro-abortion people used Roe vs Wade to nullify all laws related to protecting the mother in an abortion, which the Supreme Court decision did not cover. The mother is recognized as a person and  does not lose her rights when she becomes pregnant. In addition, the pro-abortion people have now extended the right to kill the baby up to 28 days after it is born and is lawfully considered a person which not only violates Roe vs Wade, it violates the Constitution.

 

 

Politics-A-BE

28 Mar

In Ohio, the Democrats are challenging the legislative redistricting map in the courts and the courts have turned down three maps they have drawn. It looks like they won’t accept any map that doesn’t favor them. That is not the way it is done.  The commission redraws the legislative districts to reflect changes in population so the districts are relatively equal. The party in power often draws them to favor themselves somewhat and at times it has gone to extremes but both parties do it when they are in power. The Democrats do it as much as the Republicans. The problem lies in the fact that the maps have to be completed before the ballots have to be printed for the primary elections. Since the maps drawn so far have been rejected, it has exceeded the time needed to prepare for the primary election. The mail-in ballots were printed and sent out by the deadline so they could be returned before the election. The ballots could not include the legislative positions because they don’t know what the district boundaries are going to be. That leaves a question about what to do with the legislative positions. They would have to have them added  to the voting machines at the last minute, which means the mail-in voters couldn’t vote for them or have a second primary election. Both would create a mess. The candidates wouldn’t know where to campaign since they don’t know what area will be in their district. Areas in their district previously may not be in their district when the election occurs. In addition, voters can’t research the candidates because they don’t know what district they will be voting in. It is easy to object to the way something is done but harder to help solve them. It is time to stop creating problems and start helping to solve them.

 
 

Politics-the Courts-B-AK

27 Mar

Liberals are saying that if you oppose the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, you are racist. It was good to see that a Black person could become President but President Obama did more to hurt the status of Blacks in America than any White president since I was old enough to understand politics. He spread distrust and fear between the races and by his underhanded tactics set the acceptance of Blacks by Whites back years. In the same way, it is good to have a diverse court in race and gender. However, I feel that Jackson is a bad choice for the Supreme Court and it has nothing to do with whether she is Black or a woman. There are a number of Black women that are qualified for the position. A Supreme Court justice should value life. She does not. By her own statements, she believes it is alright to kill a baby (person) if that person will be a burden to you or others. A Supreme Court justice should also value the rule of law. She does not. When asked what she bases her decisions on,  she stated that she bases her decisions on former court rulings which means she considers a judge’s opinion as more important than either the Constitution or the law of God. The Supreme Court once ruled that a Black was not a person and had no rights. The legislature than passed an Amendment granting Blacks equal rights. By her statement, she would rule that Blacks  have no rights because the courts said they don’t, even though the legislature says they do. However, liberal judges show in practice that they do not consider any opinion more important than their own, including the opinions of the Supreme Court. Her own rulings in the past show the same. She ignores Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution, and the law of God  when they differ from her own opinion. Many people in American have lost confidence in the Supreme Court because of judges like her that feel they can change the law to fit their own desires. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make laws. Such a judge will only further destroy the confidence that the American people have in the Supreme Court. To approve her solely because she is Black and a woman is to say it doesn’t matter who gets approved, as long as they are Black and a woman. If we are to restore the rule of law in this country, we need judges and politicians that fear God, and respect life and the rule of law.

 

 
 

Courts-B-AJ

18 Feb

President Biden and other liberal politicians continue to talk about adding three justices to the Court to tip the balance so they can get the decisions they want. That is not how justice works. The court justices are appointed, rather than elected so they will be the best justices available, not the most popular, and are appointed for life so no President could pack the court to get favorable judicial decisions. A President would only get to appoint a couple at most so the court would remain fairly stable and not swing with the prevailing political climate. Adding three justices solely to subvert the judicial process would not be illegal since the number of justices is not dictated by law, but it would certainly be viewed as wrong by those who believe that the courts should seek justice, not be used to overthrow the political process. The Court’s job is to settle legal disputes by interpreting the law, not to change laws made by Congress to fit their political views. While President Biden has been reluctant to add the justices because of the political backlash it would create, he has continually threatened to do so to intimidate the conservative justices into being more compromising to avoid the appearance of being politically motivated.