As we continue with our discussion of the 2000 election and the results of court intervention at both the state and federal level, there are some questions that should be answered.

The first question is, “Was President Bush legally elected by the people, including the people of Florida”? The answer is yes. An event happened on November 26, 2000 which sealed the election. According to both the Florida State Constitution and the US Constitution nothing further needed or could be done. The following is what Mark R. Levin says in his book, Men In Black concerning this event:

“On November 26, the deadline set by the Florida Supreme Court passed. Harris’s submission to Governor Jeb Bush was consistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision of November 21. Harris was legally obligated to certify the results of the popular vote and submit those results to Governor Bush, which she did. Bush (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In keeping with the flow of following Mark R. Levin’s Book, Men In Black which can be purchased on the link to your left, we will pursue the subject of a Tale of Two Courts. In Mr. Levin’s book, he has an entire chapter called “The Court Counts The Ballots” discussing at great length the chronology of events surrounding the Presidential Election of 2000. We have found this chapter to be illuminating and fascinating as we relived once again the history of events surrounding that election.

What we experienced during that month long time of intense emotion and agony was caused by the ultimate exercise in Judicial Activism first by the Florida State Supreme Court, and finally by the United States Supreme Court. The courts made their rulings based as a result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of presidential candidate Al Gore who initiated the first (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

For our Judicial Review today, we want to revisit Roe v. Wade in relation to the confirmation of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court.

Ed Whelan, President of Ethics and Public Policy Center and contributer to Bench Memos has written the most lucid explanation of three possible positions on Roe v. Wade which we have found as of this date in, Abortion & Justice. For our purposes today, we are going to outline Mr. Whelan’s three positions, set forth his observations, and finish with our conclusions.
Here are Mr. Whelan’s three positions:

1. “The pro-abortion position. The first position is that the Constitution prohibits, to one degree or another, laws that protect the life of an unborn human being against her mother’s desire to have her killed.
2. The pro-life position. A second position is that the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

While the Senate is in the “advice and consent” phase of the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, it might be worthwhile to look at how the process was approached in the recent past. We hear a lot from the left about questions which should be asked of the nominee, and some liberal Senators want memos from previous administrations to be made available. Our answer of course is to look at how the former Clinton administration handled their nominee, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and to look over her Senate confirmation hearings.

Hugh Hewitt, has a useful article on this subject, The Ginsburg Precedent where he wrote the following:

“Nothing has changed in 12 years, except that the president nominating the justice is George W. Bush and not Bill Clinton. The MSM will attempt to prop up the wild claims of Senators Leahy and Schumer about (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As we continue in our theme of individual liberty from last week where we discussed the commerce clause, we want to focus today on free speech.

There is no concept of freedom dearer to the hearts of the American people than that of free speech. The Constitution states in the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

For our purposes today the first right in the Bill of Rights following the establishment clause states:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

Today we want to focus on one particular encroachment on this all important right that has recently been passed by both House and Senate, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Last week we wrote concerning the issue of “enemy combatants”, and the Supreme Court’s having afforded rights to terrorists that should be reserved only for citizens of the United States.

Today, we want to move into the area of individual liberties for our citizens. We have observed over the years, the encroachment on our individual rights and freedoms, and most have not understood the process whereby those freedoms have been lost. We want to give an example of how a single clause in the Constitution has been so eviscerated from it’s original intent, and twisted into something it was never intended to become, so as to facilitate the gradual evolution of socialism in our free enterprise society.

The commerce clause can be found in the United State Constitution under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which states “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Last week in our discussion on the separation of rights and privileges as pertaining to the differences between U.S. citizens and illegal aliens, we stated:

“At some point in the future the Supreme Court will rule that those terrorists are protected by the same laws and standings which are supposedly reserved for citizens of the United States…”.

After further reading in Mark R. Levin’s incomparable book, Men In Black, we have discovered that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of the “enemy combatants” and their legal status. This discovery has taken us a little by surprise, because we make a concerted effort to keep up with current events, especially concerning judicial activism, but somehow we missed this one.

So the proposition then comes to mind, if we missed this one, perhaps the majority of the public missed it as well.

We will give (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The separation of rights and privileges is the issue before us today.

The United States Constitution, states very plainly and unequivocally in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the following:

“The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

The Supreme Court has usurped this unequivocal right and responsibility of the legislative branch of our government, and placed it upon themselves. They have once again become the legislators by using their rulings to enact policy and write the laws of the land.

The cases to prove this point are, Graham v. Richardson in 1971, Sugarman v. Dougall in 1973, In Re Griffiths in 1973, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong in 1976, Nyquist v. Mauclet in 1977, and finally, Plyler v. Doe in 1982.

In the above cases, the Supreme Court has granted illegal immigrants (illegal (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Perpetuated prejudices, is the issue for today.

We won’t go into the facts and history of how the Supreme Court of The United States, manufactured a law that promotes racism. For those wanting to read all the particulars, you will have to buy and read Men In Black by Mark R. Levin. You can purchase the book by clicking the link on your left.

We would only mention the cases involved and their dates which have brought judicialized racism into our legal system. We realize that judicialized is not really a word, but it aptly describes what the SCOTUS has done. The first such case was the 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The second and third cases were respectively, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Gratz v. Bollinger, both decided in 2003. The latter two cases involved the University of Michigan Law School and undergraduate (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The final ramification of the “right of privacy” issue we’ll discuss for now, is the issue of homosexual marriage.

In Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick of 1986, and basically imposed their own political will in striking down the Texas law forbidding homosexual sodomy. In doing so, they used Justice Stevens’s original dissent written for Bower v. Hardwick when he wrote,

“The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.”

In so doing, the court basically thumbed their noses at every state law and the elected representatives of those states, who had written laws prohibiting sodomy.

Justice Antonin Scalia countered their argument in writing,

“This effectively decrees majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, [no law against fornication, bigamy, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Today, we want to continue our discourse on the “right to privacy” issue we have been exploring in our previous Saturday Evening Judicial Review Posts, which can be read by clicking on that category on your left. We have already noted how we got to the point where we are, and how that has been done by bits and pieces in both majority and minority opinions handed down by the SCOTUS in various cases up to the issue before us today.

Today we want to look at Roe v. Wade. We will only give a synopsis of how Roe became Constitutional law. If you want to know more concerning the influences which effected the minds and opinions of the Justices who supported this decision, you will need to purchase and read Men In Black written by Mark R. Levin. You can purchase the book by clicking (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As we continue to wait for what could be one of the most historic votes ever taken in the United States Senate, it would be a good idea to review what some in the past have said concerning the Senate’s role of advice and consent. If Senate Democrats continue to insist on “minority” rule, Senate Republicans are poised to force on option to enforce majority rule, that would restore constitutionality to the process involving judicial nominees.

During the debate for ratifying the Constitution in the State of Virginia, James Monroe had the following to say concerning the appointment of judicial nominees by the President of the United States. Along with the President’s role, he enumerates the Senate’s role in advice and consent. Here is the excerpt from the debate held on June 10, 1788:

“He is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As we examine once again the right to privacy issue which we began exploring last week, we want to look at the next step taken by the SCOTUS in “legislating” this right and all related rights into law.

We left off last week with Griswold v. Connecticut, and how a case involving contraceptives evolved into this issue. In 1972, seven years after Griswold, the Court took under consideration, contraceptives and unmarried couples. Griswold was about the use of contraceptives, but Massachusetts had laws restricting their distribution. William Baird, during the course of a speech at Boston University on birth control and overpopulation, gave a contraceptive to a young lady. He was promptly arrested and convicted with the case ending up in the SCOTUS on the lone issue of distribution in Eisenstadt v. Baird, and the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection grounds.

Mark Levin, quoting Justice William (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Building upon last week’s assertion, that today’s SCOTUS opinions are built on non-existent precedents, we want to further explore the ramifications of such practices.

We want to explore the issue of the nonexistent “right to privacy”. You may read the United States Constitution from beginning to end, and will not find any general right to privacy clause in it. It simply is not there. The framers did not assume such a right to exist, because criminal and evil activity could take place behind such a cloak of darkness, and individuals would escape accountability for such acts. There are numerous statutes on the books against such crimes as murder, incest, or rape among many others. If such crimes as the above were committed in the privacy of one’s own home, with a general right to privacy, the offending individuals would never face prosecution based on a broad right to (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...)

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...)

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...)

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...)

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...)