Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

A Cross We Want to Bear

September 6th, 2006 Viewed 3431 times

Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San DiegoThis cross has quite the history:

The cross was erected on city property in the 1950s as a tribute to veterans from both world wars and the Korean War. It was uncontroversial until 1989, when Mr. Paulson and his supporters sued to have it removed from public land. In 1991, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ruled in their favor. So the city decided to sell the land to a private organization. In 1992 more than two-thirds of voters approved of the sale, and in 1998 it went to the highest bidder–a group that planned to keep the memorial intact.

Mr. Paulson, indicating that his beef is with the cross and not just its presence on public property, went back to court to block the sale. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals obligingly ruled that selling the memorial violated the state constitutional prohibition on state-sponsored religion because it unfairly discriminated against any potential buyers who would have had to bear the burden of pulling the cross down.

Frustrated local voters fought back, and last year 76% of them approved Proposition A, authorizing the city to donate the memorial to the federal government. They were shot down again, this time by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Crowley, who invalidated the vote on the ground that it violated state law by showing preference for a particular religion.

The one judicial reprieve in this case came from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who last month stayed a U.S. district court order fining San Diego $5,000 for each day that the cross remained standing–giving Congress time to pass the eminent-domain transfer. Mr. Paulson is now trying to block that transfer. If the case reaches the Supreme Court again, we hope that Justice Kennedy’s colleagues share the democratic view that the people of San Diego should be allowed to keep their cross.

Every time this issue has come before the voters, they overwhelmingly vote to keep it– and our challenged at the court level. The latest move by Congress to use eminent domain to buy the land and make it a federal memorial should be the final say– but we do not know what the courts will do. And that is the problem. We have become a nation that has a vote and a voice that is continually told that they are wrong by non-elected individuals.

If you’re long time readers, you will know that I’m definitely in the camp that we are a republic, not a democracy, but even a republic means that the people have representatives of their chosing– and the judges declare what our representatives pass. In this case, Mr. Paulson should be told to stop wasting his time and to find another route to wherever he is going that is causing him to see this cross and be offended.

Harriet Miers Withdraws

October 27th, 2005 Viewed 1413 times
Harriet Miers.

Harriet Miers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From the Chicago Tribune:

Harriet Miers withdraws

Associated Press
Published October 27, 2005, 7:59 AM CDT

WASHINGTON — Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice today in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.Details to come.

*** Update ***

From FoxNews:

WASHINGTON — Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

“It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president’s ability to receive candid counsel,” Bush said. “Harriet Miers’ decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.”

Judge Judy for Supreme Court?

July 8th, 2005 Viewed 1316 times
Judge Judy Sheindlin

Judge Judy Sheindlin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is by far the funniest pick for Supreme Court yet. Back when we first got married and had TV, Virtuous Blonde and I saw her and Judge Joe Brown on and off. Could you imagine Judge Judy replacing Sandra Day O’Conner? Her original comment was “I prefer not to rule by committee.” She said it was amazing that someone would put her and “Supreme Court” in same sentence.

The natural next question is, if Rehnquist also steps down does that mean there’s room for Judge Joe Brown. He’d definitely be a PC nominee. Either that, or that guy from Texas Justice. Surely a guy from Texas could have it in good with the President?

Supreme Court vs. the Constitution

June 27th, 2005 Viewed 1429 times

It seems that this round goes to the Supreme Court against the Constitution.  In a set or rulings, the courts determined that

  • 10 Commandment displays inside a court house– even if they include other historical  documents– are against the Constitution,
  • The same displays are legal outside the court house!
  • Cable companies don’t have to share their lines
  • And those who provided programs to share files can be legally held responsible if copyright material was sent.

It’s crazy, and it’s not getting any better

Continuing the Court Discussion

September 27th, 2004 Viewed 1918 times

Strangecloud posed a very interesting dilemma to my idea in the last post.  His point was that Judicial Review was put into place as part of checks and balances in the government.  If I remember my history
correctly, Judicial Review was actually a creation of a certain Supreme Court (I want to say Marshall, but I may be mistaken).  In fact, even at the time it was quite controversial.

There is a movement inside congress to restrict judicial review over topics such as homosexuality and school prayer.  The problem is that the judiciary has become all powerful, casting rulings on controversial issues that should be decided by the country’s populace and not the “enlightened” thinkers on the bench.

The part that even gets me more riled up is the fact that when the citizens do speak through their representatives about issues such as abortion and school prayer, these same justices have the audacity to say that their ruling trumps the clear reading and the people’s wishes.

My point is that since it seems impossible to keep these justices in check via legislation and since people put so much weight on how a justice will rule on moral issues (not issues of Constitutional understanding), that we need to take away or scale back that power.

CBS and the Courts

September 24th, 2004 Viewed 1941 times

I have a solution for the whole Dan Rather crisis.  I think that CBS should get a new line at the beginning of 60 Minutes.  “One of these stories is false, can you guess which one?”  Then at the end they could tell you which one.  That way, people could be skeptical, trying to guess which one the whole time.  Maybe they could tie it in with the website so that you could put in your guess.  If they would make it so you could win CBS gear or something maybe the brand could be healed.

There’s a story in the news about some legislation that is going nowhere, but has a lot of potential.  The legislation is the bill to protect the pledge of allegience from judicial review.  The democrats are screaming that

  1. It’s a moral issue that they have to go on the record about before an election.
  2. That it hurts judicial review which we’ve had for 200 years

I think the second one is more interesting.  If we were to start eroding the court’s power to review legislation (particularly on abortion, homosexuality, Christianity, etc.) then the left could not legislate from the bench.  That would make the court appointees less of an issue, and maybe we could fill the benches back up with judges instead of all of this filibustering.

To clarify, the Democrats are filibustering because of how important those positions are– because we have a judicial system who thinks that we like in an  oligarchy instead of a democratic-republic.  Take away their importance in making these unpopular decisions and voila, the filibuster could disappear too.

Judicial Tyranny

July 17th, 2004 Viewed 1466 times

What gives the rights to the nine men and women in robes to determine right or wrong?  Certainly not the Constitution of the United States. It declared that the function of courts was to interpret the law, but
these courts have gotten out of hand.

When courts can find an imaginary right to privacy in the law, and thereby kill millions of children before they are born, we should have said this was too far.  I mean, think about it.  Whether you disagree
or agree with abortion, anyone knows that extreme caution should have been taken on that ruling.  In the best case, they were only removing tissue, but in the worst case, millions of lives could be lost because
of them.

Now we are bombarded with these blatantly false statements about discrimination.  I was reading a thread the other day where the person’s statement was that no where in our Constitution is discrimination enshrined.  Has this person even read the Constitution?  Without trying very hard, I can come up with at least two:  The President must be an American Citizen, 35 yrs old or older.

Think about this… more later.


Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.