Irony in the judicial system is entertaining but more importantly worrisome. Christopher Simmons believed it would be fun to kill someone. He told his buddies they are minors and couldn't be prosecuted. Mr. Simmons confessed to tying up Shirley Crook and throwing her off a bridge into the Meramec River where she drowned. He confessed and was sentenced to death. Judges have ruled there can't be a death penalty for someone under 18 years of age so he will live. They based their ruling on international law. Judge Antonin Scalia,[1] who wrote the minority dissent, pointed out the "arrogance" of judges who cite international law instead of the U.S. Constitution which they are sworn to uphold. Judge Stephen Breyer said this ridiculous statement "U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court. The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students.... It's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere." The irony is they obviously pick and choose their references to international opinion. The U.S. is one of only three countries that allow third trimester abortions. And let us not forget, they ruled a 13 year old can end the life of her unborn child without her parents' counseling or knowledge. Not internationally popular to say the least. How ironic the courts hold up the right of a husband to have his handicapped wife put to death on hearsay, but they deny fathers of any say on the fate of their unborn child. Some believe there is "separation of church and state"so they rule you can't say God in a public school but it is okay to teach Islam in a public school. It is not freedom of speech when you display the Ten Commandments on public property, but it is freedom of speech when you display a crucifix in a bucket of urine and the Virgin Mary covered in dung. According to these judges, the constitution gives you the right to freely express your religion unless it is Christianity. Ballot initiatives that have been voted on and passed by the voters have been overturned by judges at an alarming rate. These judges feel the general public is not smart enough to understand the issue. Overturning the will of the people will have serious consequences if allowed to continue. This is not a criticism on all judges, by far most judges' rule by law as they are required. There are just a select few that rule by agenda and they have had a dangerous impact. They believe their agenda is too important to entrust with the ignorant general public. Judicial tyranny has been a growing concern with those of us on the right. The left on the other hand (pun intended), love activist judges. How else would they get through the policies the public does not want? It is a valid democracy when the left is winning, but when they are losing, there are no rules, they are "saving us" from our ignorance. It would not be accurate to call all the "activist" judges, "right to die" judges. One must remember they allow almost any accusation to appeal a life sentence for convicted criminals. Mark Levin's book Men in Black points out bad decisions as far back as the beginning of our judicial system. I agree with one of Mr. Levin's answers (or suggestions) to this problem, term limits. Maybe this would eliminate most of the God complex some of these judges have. Ann Coulter put this so well with the "God complex-ed" Greer. "No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church!" Mr. Greer, supposedly a "right to die"judge, might need to be informed that the bill of rights mentions "right to life" 3 times, "right to die" zero. Actually if you include the U.S. Constitution with all 27 amendments, a total of 8,115 words, the word "die"is mentioned, well, NEVER. God Bless America Life Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness [1] Antonin Scalia dissent was not based on right or wrong issue, Scalia believes it is a state issue. |
