Effective right to exist
A government that is too paralyzed to protect its citizens and too afraid to allow them the means to protect themsleves has lost the moral right to exist. Any wonder vote turnout is so low? SCOTUS has changed the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW to JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
0
-
Hmmmm....not bad dutchman, not bad. You don't waste any time on verbalism. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
A government that is too paralyzed to protect its citizens and too afraid to allow them the means to protect themsleves has lost the moral right to exist. Any wonder vote turnout is so low? SCOTUS has changed the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW to JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
Do you have any ideas what to do about it that will not land any of us in a dark wet jail cell eating table scraps ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by nyforester
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
A government that is too paralyzed to protect its citizens and too afraid to allow them the means to protect themsleves has lost the moral right to exist. Any wonder vote turnout is so low? SCOTUS has changed the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW to JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
Do you have any ideas what to do about it that will not land any of us in a dark wet jail cell eating table scraps ?
Don't be on the losing end of the stick! [:D][:I]0 -
The reason voter turnout is so low is due to the majority of the population being some combination of stupid/lazy/apathetic.
I'm not sure what you mean by judicial tyranny. Other than the recent ruling on Eminent Domain, which I predict will be overturned by the Roberts court, I can't think of any ruling worth raising too much ruckus over.
Maybe I'm overlooking something0 -
Would the term "judicial activists" fit better R-O ? 0 -
If voting could change anything, it would be illegal. 0 -
X-ring, gunny. It will be pretty soon. Remember the Reichstag fire? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Would the term "judicial activists" fit better R-O ?
Hmm...I don't know...
It is quite clear that the judiciary has grown far more power than originally intended. I think it is worth noting that the powers of ALL branches of government have grown more than intended, particularly the powers of the President.
In all honesty, I trust the judges to do the right thing more than Congress or the President. An elected government trampled the peoples' right to bear arms in Washington, D.C. I saw no one on this board complain when "activist judges" overturned those laws.0 -
quote:SCOTUS has changed the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW to JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
I agree. And I believe it began with the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. It was the death of States Rights and it was the death of Individual Rights.
Equal Protection has now come to mean Equal Persecution. Not only are you beholden to local and state laws, but, above all, you are beholden to the almighty Federal Law.0 -
SHould Hilary get elected I believe this could spell the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. Perhaps a third party could fill the vacuum. The questions id: what third party would most likely succeed (or secede?)? 0 -
What I meant by judicial tyranny is that we, the people, cannot elect the judges who decide on the application fo the Constitution. Their opinions are binding yet they are not accountable to the electorate. This would seem to me as tyrannical as King Geroge or Josef Stalin. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments