Wednesday, September 22, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesThe Federal Judiciary-Working Hard Every Day to Make Nancy Pelosi's Dream Come...

The Federal Judiciary-Working Hard Every Day to Make Nancy Pelosi’s Dream Come True

    

 “… she let the cat out of the bag on another secret when she encouraged Republicans to get rid of their Tea Partiers “so that the results of elections won’t be so important.”

Oh, Nancy,  not to worry!  Surely you know that your wish is not just the judiciary’s command, but their entire raison d’etre!

    Did you know there are 874 federal judges.  Eight hundred seventy four federal judges?  Do you know how many people we have to represent us in the United States House of Representatives?  435.  Four hundred thirty five …..  roughly half the number of unelected federal judges.  Did you know that there are 94 federal district courts?  Ninety four federal districts.  Do you know how many states there are?  (Not you, Barack; sit down and shut up!)  50.  Fifty.  Roughly half the number of federal districts.  There are twice as many federal districts as there are states.

     When, or if,  you consider the constitution of the United States and the limited role it envisioned for interference by the ‘federal’ government in the affairs of the people and of the sovereign states, can you conceive of a rationale for the construction of such a leviathan?  You know the old saw “Don’t make a federal case out of it!”  If, in addition to  the Supreme  Court in Washington DC, with its nine justices  and the support apparatus around it, there are 865 other judges ensconced in life tenure positions across the land, and the apparatuses associated with the 94 districts, not to mention the twelve U.S. Circuit courts of appeals, and all of the bureaucracy and structure and logistics associated with those operations, the frequency and duration with which people ‘make federal cases’ out of things must be staggering, even approach incomprehensibility.
     In a move that would make Nancy, and the shadowy forces that have been propping her and the likes of her up for decades and decades, proud, a federal court in Michigan has ruled that Michigan’s MCRI (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), or “Proposal 2′, is unconstitutional.   A proposal, or proposition, or referendum, is to the people like electing people to office.  In addition to being able to ‘throw the bums out’  they can throw the bum laws out.  This right is granted to them by the very constitution that the federal panel in Michigan cited when striking down the Michigan law, which by the way has been in effect for five years, and which was intended to eliminate reverse discrimination practiced by state institutions of higher learning in accepting lesser-qualified minority applicants to the detriment of more qualified majority race applicants.  You are probably familiar with that.

     Just as you are probably familiar with Proposition 8 in California, or any number of other citizen initiatives across the land where the people have made their will known by popular vote, only to have one, two, three, seven, or sometimes nine lifetime-appointed judges deny the will of millions upon millions of citizens as expressed at the ballot box, either in referendums or in laws they sent their representatives to Congress or to statehouses to enact for them.

     We know of no famous case in Michigan since Proposal 2 was passed five years ago where a qualified minority was denied his or her admission to university because of their race.  Life has pretty much gone on in Michigan, just as it did in the US as a whole after the welfare reforms were enacted in the nineties by the congress, and, parenthetically, with the acquiescence of the nation’s first ‘black president’, William Jefferson Clinton.  So what does this latest ruling tell us about the state of affairs as regards democracy in America?  It tells us that it does not matter that race as a divisive issue among the people of this country, and as relates to the conduct of their lives, is for all practical purposes a dead issue.  The agenda-driven habitues of the federal judiciary can be prevailed upon by the power brokers  and their friends in the so-called Progressive Movement to resurrect it in a New York minute.

     And more.  It tells us that the real minority in this country are the people who think they still have a right to petition their governments for a redress of grievances, which was previously acknowledged to them in Amendment One to the Constitution, or believe that we are a nation governed under laws and not ruled by men.  Yes, they are the true minority, and their rights are being trampled underfoot by jackboots protruding out from flowing black robes.  This is not what was intended by the phrase ‘checks and balances’, ladies and gentlemen.  And both Marbury and Madison would be appalled if they were around today.

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

3 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

3 COMMENTS

  1. I’ve read where some of these Federal judges gripe about vacancies on their bench; it causes these employees of ours to have to work too hard.

    A federal appeals court today overturned Proposal 2, saying the voter-approved measure harms minorities and is unconstitutional.

    The 2006 law forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    The court in particular objected to the inclusion of the voter-approved ban in the Michigan Constitution in its 59-page ruling.

    “Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests,” judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said.

    The ban, passed with 58 percent of the vote nearly five years ago, affected government hiring as well as college admissions.

    In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld the law, saying it was race-neutral.

    Can someone please explain to me how our Federal employees can render a state Constitutional change, barring the use of racial preferences entirely, unconstitutional because it supposedly violates the 14 Amendment equal protection clause and places special burdens on minorities? Ignoring race treats people differently?

    Perhaps future Senate votes on these lifetime appointed employees should include mastery of basic English language and reasoning skills?

  2. mrig: All my life I have read in the news where “a federal district judge issued a stay” or a “three-judge panel issued a ruling” or “the 9th Circuit convened en banc and reaffirmed an earlier ruling” or “the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s yadda, yadda, yadda” and while agreeing or diagreeing with the issue, never pausing to consider that the federal judiciary consists of a veritable army of judges, sometimes seeming to have carte blanche to rule on a whim or to hold a hearing or issue a ruling on the feeblest of pretense. All a national special interest group has to do is shop for a client in a particular state or district and then shop for a judge and all of a sudden an entire state, and sometimes the entire country, is thrown into turmoil. Nine Supremes are not going to keep up wih the political and personal ambitions of 865 federal judges across the country. The Congress needs to begin cutting this baby down to size.

  3. Revisit-ski:

    Although he’s late to the game, Barone says it much better than I did:

    It’s racially discriminatory to prohibit racial discrimination. That’s the bottom line of a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The case was brought by an organization called By Any Means Necessary to overturn a state constitutional amendment passed by a 58 percent majority of Michigan voters in November 2006.

  1. I’ve read where some of these Federal judges gripe about vacancies on their bench; it causes these employees of ours to have to work too hard.

    A federal appeals court today overturned Proposal 2, saying the voter-approved measure harms minorities and is unconstitutional.

    The 2006 law forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    The court in particular objected to the inclusion of the voter-approved ban in the Michigan Constitution in its 59-page ruling.

    “Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests,” judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said.

    The ban, passed with 58 percent of the vote nearly five years ago, affected government hiring as well as college admissions.

    In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld the law, saying it was race-neutral.

    Can someone please explain to me how our Federal employees can render a state Constitutional change, barring the use of racial preferences entirely, unconstitutional because it supposedly violates the 14 Amendment equal protection clause and places special burdens on minorities? Ignoring race treats people differently?

    Perhaps future Senate votes on these lifetime appointed employees should include mastery of basic English language and reasoning skills?

  2. mrig: All my life I have read in the news where “a federal district judge issued a stay” or a “three-judge panel issued a ruling” or “the 9th Circuit convened en banc and reaffirmed an earlier ruling” or “the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s yadda, yadda, yadda” and while agreeing or diagreeing with the issue, never pausing to consider that the federal judiciary consists of a veritable army of judges, sometimes seeming to have carte blanche to rule on a whim or to hold a hearing or issue a ruling on the feeblest of pretense. All a national special interest group has to do is shop for a client in a particular state or district and then shop for a judge and all of a sudden an entire state, and sometimes the entire country, is thrown into turmoil. Nine Supremes are not going to keep up wih the political and personal ambitions of 865 federal judges across the country. The Congress needs to begin cutting this baby down to size.

  3. Revisit-ski:

    Although he’s late to the game, Barone says it much better than I did:

    It’s racially discriminatory to prohibit racial discrimination. That’s the bottom line of a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The case was brought by an organization called By Any Means Necessary to overturn a state constitutional amendment passed by a 58 percent majority of Michigan voters in November 2006.

Must Read