Monday, December 23, 2013

Who Checks and Balances the Federal Judiciary?



When Barack Obama promised to fundamentally change the United States, he wasn’t kidding.  We are currently living the nightmare that is Obamacare, and he has strategically placed activist judges in key districts.  A U.S. District Court judge in Utah, appointed by the Anointed One, made an asinine ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.  Here is an excerpt from CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) - Judge Robert J. Shelby, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the U.S. District Court in Utah last year, issued an opinion on Friday declaring that a right to same-sex marriage is "deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Shelby was confirmed to the federal bench by a voice vote of the Senate on Sept. 21, 2012. There was no debate over his nomination, and no senator objected to his confirmation.
He has now issued an opinion that could fundamentally alter American law and culture.
“The State’s second argument is that the Plaintiffs are really seeking a new right, not access to an existing right,” Shelby wrote in an opinion issued on the afternoon of the Friday before Christmas.
Shelby ruled in this opinion that the state constitutional amendment that 66 percent of Utah voters approved in 2004 restricting marriage in that state to the union of a man and a woman violated the U.S. Constitution.

Homosexual marriage is deeply rooted in the nation’s history?  What history books has this guy been reading?  Wow!



Of course, the vehicle that all activist judges use to circumvent the legislative process and the Constitution is the 14th Amendment.  The federal judiciary has completely bastardized the 14th.  They have used it as a weapon to impose their will upon the citizens of this country.  Four out of the five clauses in this post-Civil War amendment was designed to punish and disenfranchise Southerners.  The equal protection clause was meant to ensure ex-slaves and their progeny were granted equal protection under individual state laws.  But of course, through the decades, this punitive amendment has been shaped by unelected and unaccountable judges to mean anything they want.
 The Anti-Federalist was right when it came to the judiciary.  They predicted that this branch of government would become the most destructive of the three.  The pseudonymous writer, Brutus, predicted the following:
 Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accomodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted; one adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only; so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the mean time all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion. The people will be told, that their state officers, and state legislatures are a burden and expence without affording any solid advantage, for that all the laws passed by them, might be equally well made by the general legislature. If to those who will be interested in the change, be added, those who will be under their influence, and such who will submit to almost any change of government, which they can be persuaded to believe will ease them of taxes, it is easy to see, the party who will favor the abolition of the state governments would be far from being inconsiderable. — In this situation, the general legislature, might pass one law after another, extending the general and abridging the state jurisdictions, and to sanction their proceedings would have a course of decisions of the judicial to whom the constitution has committed the power of explaining the constitution. — If the states remonstrated, the constitutional mode of deciding upon the validity of the law, is with the supreme court, and neither people, nor state legislatures, nor the general legislature can remove them or reverse their decrees.


Had the construction of the constitution been left with the legislature, they would have explained it at their peril; if they exceed their powers, or sought to find, in the spirit of the constitution, more than was expressed in the letter, the people from whom they derived their power could remove them, and do themselves right; and indeed I can see no other remedy that the people can have against their rulers for encroachments of this nature. A constitution is a compact of a people with their rulers; if the rulers break the compact, the people have a right and ought to remove them and do themselves justice; but in order to enable them to do this with the greater facility, those whom the people chuse at stated periods, should have the power in the last resort to determine the sense of the compact; if they determine contrary to the understanding of the people, an appeal will lie to the people at the period when the rulers are to be elected, and they will have it in their power to remedy the evil; but when this power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people, and of their representatives, and who are not, constitutionally, accountable for their opinions, no way is left to controul them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm.


I ask, who checks and balances the federal judiciary.  As stated by Brutus: No one.




No comments: