Today is the beginning of what we hope will be an interesting and fun exploration of the activism in the United States Judiciary. We will be using Mark R. Levin’s Book, Men In Black along with other history books, articles, and direct quotations from the Men and Women who sit as judges in our courtrooms. We will be looking primarily at the Supreme Court of The United States, SCOTUS for short.

Why would we embark on such an undertaking? The answer is simple. There is a lack of knowlege concerning our judiciary among our population that stems from a long held view that these Men and Women in black robes can do no wrong. It is our intention to take a closer look at these individuals and their decisions in the courts. We hope what we write will be understandable by anyone who reads this, and will be (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

John Paul II, has passed into eternity. He will long be remembered for keeping the teachings of the Catholic Church focused on life, care for the downtrodden, and opposition to communism. Even if one is not a Catholic, we can pause to recognize this man’s untiring work for good in the world.

Red State has a beautiful write-up of the Pope’s life and mission entitled, No man lived more fully. Here is a small excerpt:

“Karol Wojtyla was a man of salt and light, who took the Gospel message throughout the world, even to nations that opposed his very existence. He fought against the culture of death as an eloquent spokesman for the unique value of every human life. He was a suffering servant for Mankind, with his eyes always on heaven and earth at the same time.”

Hugh Hewitt wrote the following today:

“Such an outpouring of deep sorrow I don’t think the world will have seen since Churchill died.

With Reagan and Solzhenitsyn, John Paul II represents the three forces of opposition to communism that shattered the evil empire, the Soviet Union –the American-led West, the Eastern European resistance, and the Russian dissident movement. They also represented the three spheres of opposition: political, artistic and spiritual. Each man came into the field of his greatness later in life, and each has endured hard circumstances in their later years. I hope Solzhenitisyn is able to and inclined to write about his colleagues in the struggle that triumphed.”

Mr. Hewitt’s post can be found here.

We join with the Catholic Faithful of the world in commemorating his life and his passing.

Well it is Spring time in Missouri, and the farmers are in the field plowing the ground in preparation for planting. You have got to love farmers. They are some of the hardest working people in the world. They work long hard hours in the fields, and then patiently wait for the rains to come and the sun to shine allowing them to harvest a crop.

These men and women are patient, trusting, and persevering. They embody the ABC’s of Agriculture.

“7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

For those who thought Michael Schiavo and his attorney had Terri’s best interest at heart, you might want to take another look.

From the Toronto Free Press we have this article from March 31, 2005 entitled, Mainstream media unreported conflicts of interest in Schiavo tragedy. Here is an excerpt:

” There’s the death-is-beautiful, right-to-die activist Michael Schiavo attorney George Felos.

Don’t make eye contact with Felos, who claims he can ascertain a person’s desire to die by “looking into their eyes” and letting their spirits speak directly to him.

A jumped-up volunteer at Woodside Hospice, Felos became chairman of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which runs Woodside, and only came off the board about a year after Michael Schiavo placed his estranged wife there.

Then there’s Dr. Ronald Cranford, handpicked by Michael Schiavo to examine Terri and on whose say-so Terri was categorized in “persistent (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Our thanks to Hugh Hewitt, for pointing to this article in USNews.

The article written by John Leo entitled, End of the Affair, has a round-up of final thoughts about the Terri Schiavo case. Please read the entire article. It is worth your time and effort.

The most stunning paragraphs of the article are the “Unsettled Questions”. Here is the excerpt:

” Unsettled questions. Public opinion: Polls showed very strong opposition to the Republican intervention, but the likelihood is that those polled weren’t primarily concerned with Terri Schiavo or Republican overreaching, if that’s what it was. They were thinking about themselves and how to avoid being in Terri Schiavo’s predicament. Many, too, have pulled the plug on family members and don’t want these wrenching decisions second-guessed by the courts or the public.

If this is correct, it means the country has yet to make (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Testicularitus. Never heard of it before? Probably because it isn’t a word yet. We just made it up today.

We can’t find any reference to this word in any online dictionary, nor can we find it in any internet search engine. So we are going to claim it as our own. This word is being coined today in much the same way as the word “Pajamahadeen” was coined by Jim Geraghty of National Review Online. Mr Geraghty used “Pajamahadeen” in response to the comment by Jonathan Klein, (former executive vice president of CBS News) who described bloggers in a debate on the O’Reilly Factor. The quote from the debate is printed in The Wall Street Opinion Journal in an article by John Fund, entitled, I’d Rather Be Blogging.

Jonathan Klein said, “You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt has a great article today entitled, Showdown in the Senate?. He gives a brief rundown on the facts concerning judicial nominee filibustering. Here is an excerpt:

“Now is the time to express to GOP senators your demand for a vote on the abuse of cloture. The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. Contact information for senators is found here. Among GOP senators said to be wavering are would-be presidential candidates Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John McCain of Arizona. Both are intriguing and viable candidates, but not if they vote against breaking the filibuster. Similarly, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is one of the few GOP “liberals” left and it is useful to the caucus to have such a diversity of views, but his re-election will be doomed if he votes against the ruling from the Chair. The NRSC, which (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We like Red State Rant’s article today entitled, Is it Just Me?. As they say, “A picture is worth a thousand words”.

Check it out!

If you thought the right to life scenario was over after Terri Schiavo, think again. A case in LaGrange, Georgia of an 85 year old woman who has a living will is being usurped by her granddaughter.

It seems a well-meaning, but uninformed judge has granted the power of attorney to the granddaughter. The granddaughter has moved the elderly woman to a hospice and is now withholding nutrition and water from her. This despite the existence of a living will. Thrown Back Blog has the details, here.

The following is an excerpt:

“The similarities of Mae Margourik’s situation and Terri Schiavo’s are obvious: Once again we have a family divided over what care should be given to a seriously ill relative. And once again, we have a judge playing God with someone’s life. But what is different, and in a sense worse, is that Mae is being deprived of food and water in clear contravention of her own stated wishes, and at the request of someone who should have no standing under Georgia law. “

Our thanks to Insta Pundit for pointing to this story. Please read the whole article.

Update: Another link to this story from World Net Daily in an article entitled, Granddaughter yanks grandma’s feeding tube. It seems we may have been too kind in our reference to the judge in our statement above. This artice is much more detailed, with statements from Mrs. Magouirk’s nephew Ken Mullinax.

Most commentators on both sides of the political landscape would acknowledge the fact of judicial activism in our Federal Courts. The question is: How did we arrive where we are? How did our Federal Courts, especially the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS for short) take over the authority of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Federal Government?

The foundation for judicial activism began with Marbury v. Madison in 1803, but the history goes back even further. The Judiciary Acts of 1789 and 1801 set the stage for the players to craft what today would be called a political soap opera.

The Judiciary Act of 1801 was introduced before the presidential election of 1800, but wasn’t passed until after the election, which ultimately was determined in the House of Representatives. President John Adams signed the bill on February 13, 1801, three weeks before the end (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The theory of evolution has taken another hit according to an article from Agape Press on News Bull Family Blog Forum, entitled, Young Earth Creationist Has New Bone to Pick With Evolutionists.

This from the report:

“According to an article published in last month’s Science magazine, in 2003 scientists found a Tyrannosaurus Rex thigh bone during an archaeological dig. The research team had to break the bone in pieces in order to fit it into a helicopter, and when they did so, they discovered the fossil contained well-preserved soft tissues, including blood vessels.”

The original Science Magazine article can be found here.

This raises some fascinating questions concerning some key components in the evolution theory time-line. Ken Ham, President of Answers In Genesis is quoted as saying,

“The reason this is such startling news is because you just wouldn’t expect soft tissue (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The questions for today are: Where do we stand as Republicans, and where are we headed?

As to the first question, Real Clear Politics, has a great commentary written by Michael Barone entitled, The Hardest Numbers. Mr. Barone makes a great case for just how strong we are as a party, and possible gains in the future. Here is a small portion:

“The implications? In the long run, Republicans are well positioned to increase their numbers in both the Senate and the House. Some Democrats hold seats because of personal popularity or moderate voting records. But when they retire, Republicans may well succeed them. In the short run, very few Republicans run great political risks by supporting Bush. Significantly more Democrats run great political risks by opposing him. Obstruction doesn’t work well for Democrats in Bush seats: Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Red State has an article entitled, On the Political Ineptitude of Hillary, written by The Horserace Blogger. If you want an education in politics, this is the guy to follow. He will some day be up there with Michael Barone when it comes to analysis. This article deals with Senator Hillary Clinton’s obvious run-up to the presidency in 2008. Here is a portion:

“And Hillary Clinton is a bad politician. Ironically her awfulness as a politician is why people think she is so great. Her political moves are so obvious that everybody discusses how “political” she is. “Oooooh…she is so Machiavellian!” Pundits are in awe of how overtly political she is — and they assume that her overtness is a sign of her excellence. Far from it. As anybody who has read The Prince knows, the true Machiavellian is one that everybody thinks is a saint.”

His final conclusion is this:

“Or, to quote Kaiser Soze, “The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Hillary is no political devil precisely because everybody is convinced that she is!”

This is an excellent read on Hillary. The Horserace Blogger writes from a position of research and depth on this subject.

So should we fear Hillary? If the Horserace Blogger is correct, we need have no fear.

If you want to keep up with what is going on with Democrat filibustering of judicial nominees, here are a few articles and links to help you out.

Powerline has an article entitled, That Was Then, This Is Now, catching Senator Leahy and Senator Schumer in a little Democratic double-speak.

Hugh Hewitt has a post entitled, Memo to Senator Warner: The Left wants to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. Is that serious enough for you?

Finally Confirm Them has four new articles today so far.

If you haven’t contacted your Senator, the Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. E-Mail contact information is here.

This volcano is heating up, and will erupt soon.

Red State Rant has a post on Global warming entitled, Stossel on global Warming and oh yeah hate mail to. Don’t you just love it, when this is all they can come up with? Here is part of the post:

“As Stossel reports:

Thirty years ago this month, Newsweek reported: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.” The headline? “The Cooling World.” That’s right: Just 30 years ago, scaremongers were telling us about global cooling . The alarmists never stop. Maybe the key issue isn’t science. Maybe they just want us to be “concerned.”

Red State Rant has the link to the original article on Town Hall. Our two pet theories debunked in one week. What more could one ask for? See here for the other theory debunked.

Law.Com has an article entitled, Two Groups Break Ranks on Changing Filibuster Rules Over Blocked Judges. This is the kind of article that should send shivers down the spine of every conservative in this country. It is proof positive, that if given enough time, and constant repetition, the MSM will have their desired effect on the public. It is also sufficient proof that it is time to push the button on the Constitutional option concerning judicial nominees.

Below are the links to the day’s stories on filibustering judicial nominees.

Here is a Red State article entitled, The Filibuster Fight: Frist vrs. Reid, Schumer, et al, a Confirm Them article entitled, A Decision Possible Within Two Weeks, and finally a Daly Thoughts article with accurate numbers representing Bush’s confirmations, entitled, Judicial Confirmation Statistics.

Delay no further on pushing the Constitutional-Byrd-Nuclear button. We need no further Senate Democrat palavering, and it’s publication in the Main Stream Media.

Red State has a story about the recently proposed legislation to block the FEC from regulating online political speech. Their article entitled, Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House contains the text of Congressman Jeb Hensarling’s letter to his colleagues. Here is the letter:

“Dear Colleague:

When Congress passed campaign finance reform in 2002, the legislation did not identify the Internet as a target of regulation, and rightly so. The explosion of new technology has done much to democratize our politics, encourage grassroots political involvement, and act as a tremendous catalyst for civic engagement across our country. With the emergence of blogs, the Internet truly puts the power in the hands of the people.

Unfortunately, a federal judge has ruled that the FEC’s previous broad exemption of the Internet was impermissible absent clear direction from Congress. Within (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt is again encouraging the Senate Republicans to get on with the show in an article entitled, The Tipping (Away) Point. Hugh’s point is made quite clearly. If Senate Majority Leader Frist does not put down a schedule for the constitutional option and win, Republicans will lose in the 2006 election cycle. Here is a portion of his article:

“The political risks of continued dithering are outlined in my WeeklyStandard.com column, “Lead the Way.” Put bluntly: If the GOP loses or refuses the battle over the filibuster, it will lose the 2006 Senate elections, a set of contests it could actually win if the base thought there was any point to winning elections.”

This is another portion:

“So Senator Frist should lay out a schedule leading to the vote, and Senator Specter should march the blocked nominees through the Judiciary Committee, or the GOP as a whole should use the extraordinary procedure to bring them to the floor. Even if six or more GOP senators defect, at least the activists will know who they can trust and who they ought to punish. It is that simple.

You can encourage these steps by e-mailing any GOP senator or by calling their office at 202-225-3121.”

This is “the” most important political issue in two centuries. The Democrats have made it so by their unconstitutional filibustering of Judicial Nominees. It is well past time for Senate Republicans to lead in this situation, and exercise their constitutional duty.

Perhaps the Senate Republicans need to find a cure for their particular torment which we wrote about here.

It would be impossible to describe the outrage we feel towards Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona after his statement on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. The transcript can be found on Radio Blogger, here. This is Senator McCain’s statement:

“CM: But bottom line, would you vote with the people that are for what’s called the nuclear option, to get rid of the filibuster rule on judgeships?

JM: No, I will not.

CM: You’ll stick with the party then.

JM: Oh, I will vote against the nuclear option. Against the nuclear option.

CM: You will. So you’ll vote with the Democrats?

JM: Yes.”

It is clear from this statement, Senator McCain has finally made his decision to align himself once more with the Democrats and their unconstitutional use of the filibuster against judicial nominees.

It is our contention that Senator McCain feels more important when (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Following last weeks Judicial Review Post #2 on Marbury v. Madison, we want to continue with “The Separation of Church and State”. This issue has become so confused, and so much mis-information has been spewed by liberals, it will take more than one Saturday post to sort it all out. So we will divide it up into at least two and perhaps three Saturday Posts.

We start today with a little history on this subject and the First Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Madison who was the primary author of the Bill of Rights, “apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

I found this article at Red State Rant and am going to use most of it for our post today. It is entitled, Pardon My Sensationalism, and written by Jarhead, a Marine, (I’m not sure whether he is still in the service, or is now out, but once a Marine, always a Marine.) who posts there sometimes. Here is most of what he wrote:

“A couple of days ago I had the unfortunate task of taking part in a search for a 4 year old boy that went missing from his home. My role in the search was that of a minor player on the periphery of events, canvassing a nearby neighborhood, even though I’d been instructed to remain in service for other calls. I just couldn’t stay away.

Here is the story from our local paper, the Gainesville (Ga) Times.

While the newspaper (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt has been criticized for his stance concerning pulling the money out from under Republican Senators who don’t support breaking the filibuster on Judicial Nominees. See his article entitled, Convenient Red Lines, and Rules Made to be Broken, especially part 2. Here is the best part:

“But the Republican Party stands for two things above all others: The robust defense of the country and the rule of law. A “Republican” who deserts on either of these two issues is simply taking themselves out of the very, very big tent. Disagreement on every issue is possible, whether abortion, taxes, immigration, or defense appropriations, and details on legislation can divide Republicans of good faith over and over again. Individual senators can oppose individual judges –a vote against Judge Bork, though shocking to me, wasn’t a declaration against the rule of law for example.

But the radical use of the filibuster is a direct departure from the Constitution’s anticipation of a majority vote on presidential nominees, and the idea that preserving this illegitimate weapon of an out-of-control minority for future use by a minority GOP is doubly offensive. “Blue slips” and majoritarian power in the Committee are not assaults on the Constitution, but the sustained assertion of a 60-vote super-majority on the floor of the Senate is. Defend that practice and you are defending a shredding of the Constitution, and out of the GOP you should go.”

Confirm Them, has all the latest on the confirmation war.

Finally, Red State Rant, has so many good articles today, we didn’t have time to read all of them.

We awakened yesterday with new hope for Senate Republicans. We saw some progress in the filibuster wars, with Republican leadership at last starting to verbalize what everyone in the base was wanting to hear. But alas it was short lived as is evidenced by the postponement of nomination hearings for John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.

The United Nations has become so corrupt, scandal ridden, beneath comtempt, and irrelevant in recent years, it will take a tough minded individual as ambassador to help straighten it out. John Bolton is just such a person. Power Line has the details in their article entitled, Senate Slanderfest to Continue. Here is a portion:

“ANOTHER UPDATE: Rich Lowry got an email from a “well-informed source”:

A few tidbits…

1. The Senate went into a special recess so Bolton could (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In an article published in the The Washington Times, on April 19th, 2005, Jennifer Harper reveals some interesting statistics concerning college age young people. The article entitled, Student Bush Backers Outnumber Critics, says “It’s close, very close. But more college students approve of President Bush than disapprove of him, according to a poll released yesterday by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics.
The survey of 1,206 students nationwide finds about 47 percent approve of Mr. Bush, about 46 percent disapprove and about 6 percent are unsure. There’s an uptick in collegiate conservatism as well: 33 percent say they are conservatives, up three points from 2004. ”

This is great news for the future of our country, and should be an incentive for more young people to get involved in the political process. If you are not aware of it, the College Republican National Committee’s website provides many opportunities for young people to become politically active. There are chapters on most college campuses, and if not on your campus, they have information to help you get a chapter started.

Young people “are” the future. Make the future brighter for you and your future families. Have a voice in your government. If you don’t raise your voice, someone else will, and they may not say what you want said.

As we continue on with the issue of “The Separation of Church and State” from last Saturday, we noted an obscure phrase in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson which said, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. We further noted how Justice Hugo Black who found this phrase seized on it in writing for the SCOTUS in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Though writing for the majority of the court in upholding the use of public funds to transport children to parochial schools, he in fact undercut the true meaning of the establishment clause.

Levin in quoting Black’s biographer says that Justice Hugo Black did so on purpose. He joined with (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

This is the week in which Senate Republicans have the opportunity to bring to an end the tyranny of the minorty concerning President Bush’s judicial nominees. The stage has been set. The players are in place. It also appears Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has the votes needed to put an end to this unconstitutional obstructionism.

The proof for the above events is provided by Senator Joe Biden who yesterday offered a compromise. Yesterday, Biden said on “This Week”:

“I think we should compromise and say to them that we’re willing to — of the seven judges — we’ll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through and put off this vote [to end the filibuster].”

Powerline had this to say about such a compromise.

“The last thing the Republicans should do at this point is accept Biden’s deal. The (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We have an old saying out here in fly-over country which we call home. It is an old country boy saying, that has been tried but true. The title of our post is the saying “Stupid lasts Forever”. It wouldn’t be so tragic if it weren’t so true.

As we began to read this morning we discovered Senate Republicans falling apart on the judicial nominee filibuster issue. The Washington Times in a story by Charles Hurt entitled, Undecided Specter could doom GOP. It appears that Senator Arlen Specter is again falling off the “Constitutional Option” wagon. You can read the sad story using the link above.

EconRadical of Red State is saying, Let me be the first to call for Frist to resign. We don’t agree fully with EconRadical just yet, but if what he is reporting comes true, we will not (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is something every eighth grader in this country has read and understood in order to be graduated into high school. At least that was the requirement just a few years ago.

It is not diffuicult to read or understand. Anyone with an even cursory knowledge of the English language, and at least some knowlege of American History can understand the obvious meaning of the Second Amendment, which by the way was number two in the “Bill of Rights” to the Constitution. The ten “Bill of Rights” were ratifed by the states and became effective December 15, 1791.

The Second Amendment states,

“A well regulated Militia, being nescessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

The opinions of what the Militia constists of, has become so (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In an effort to compromise with the Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist made an offer on the floor of the Senate yesterday afternoon which in the opinions of all fair minded people should have been accepted with open arms.

Sadly, it was rejected, and the reasoning was almost incoherent. The Washington Times has Senate Minority Reid’s rejection in an article entitled, Democrats scorn Frist offer. Radio Blogger writes about What Senator Reid really said on the floor yesterday.

Senator Frist’s speech is here.

Powerline’s article entitled, Democrats Reject Compromise on Judges is an outstanding analysis of just how far Democrats will go to protect obstructionism. Here is an excerpt:

“Harry Reid’s response, as reported by the Washington Times, was childish and incoherent. Unable to deny the fairness or the logic or Frist’s offer, Reid (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Picking up where we left off last week on the issue of “The Separation of Church and State”, we want to continue with our final episode on this important subject. Last week we noted, “that today’s court opinions are based on pieces of opinions which are cited as precedents, where no precedent actually exists”. We illustrated the point with Justice Hugo Black’s use of Thomas Jefferson’s obscure statement, “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”, in a majority opinion which set a precedent for all rulings that have followed on this issue.

Today we want to look at a more contemporary case which relied heavily on the precedents set down beforehand in one opinion or another. In the 1992, Lee v. Wiseman, majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote,

“The undeniable fact is that the school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)