Your Imperial Courts: "You Say You Want A Revolution"?

[NOTE: many will likely be blogging about the passing of Tim Russert. I did not watch Meet The Press nor did I know about Russert or much care. However, my sympathies are obviously extended to the Russert family, his wife Maureen and son Luke; no one should pass at the young age of 58. -BZ]

The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled along a strict liberal bent that the Guantanamo Bay detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge, that they are due civil trials despite the fact that they are enemy combatants completely disavowing and abrogating any and all Geneva Convention rules, and seek the complete downfall of this nation and all Western culture.

Fred Thompson wrote, in response to the ruling:

Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

But, instead – as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent – they for the first time in our nation’s history, conferred a Constitutional right of habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war – a broader right than has been given to our own citizens. The court majority did so acknowledging that they could find no precedent to confer such a right to alien enemies not within sovereign U.S. territory.

The majority had simply decided that prior courts had denied such rulings based on “practical considerations.” In other words in prior cases and prior wars it had just been too inconvenient to bestow the right of habeas corpus upon non-citizens in foreign jurisdictions. So, by focusing on what they saw as “practical” instead of those pesky court precedents based upon the issues of citizenship and foreign territory … and the Constitution … the majority reached the conclusion they wanted to, since what is practical is subjective. One can only ponder the state of our nation directed by the subjective instead of the Constitution.

Of course the Left took this ruling with great glee, despite the fact that they'd be the first to sport slit throats under an Islamic rule.

In that judicial vein, the Fornicalia Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday (May 14), effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.

As I wrote in that post:

Once again, the California Supreme Court shows residents that it couldn't care less what 36-million Californians think (as Fornicalia approved Proposition 22 in the year 2000, on a 4,579,386 / 61.2% Yes votes -- 2,897,689 / 38.8% No votes), by granting same sex marriage.

This issue will be, ONCE AGAIN, on the November ballot in Fornicalia and -- trust me -- will ultimately end up in SCOTUS. I predict with this: as voted SCOTUS on Guantanmo so may SCOTUS go in gay marriage.

Obama will skew SCOTUS even further to the Left. McCain may be a bit of a question-mark; Obama will be a given.

Imperial US courts.

I am taking a stance. I say: Most American courts couldn't care less what the majority of American citizens want; they simply have an agenda.

Those who pay taxes, those who foot the federal, state and local bills, those who labor and sweat and cannot take the time to protest, who cannot sacrifice the time and the dollars required to stand in line carrying placards because they are consumed necessarily with providing for their children and families, these are the people the courts and politicians and administrations stand to alienate. To ignore.

And I say, as I wrote in the comment section of another blog: the more you remove rationality from the courts, the more you remove rationality from the various federal and state legislatures, the more you disavow the will of the People, the more you box in the electorate -- then the more you almost guarantee that the only road left for protest is violent insurrection.

To those "in power:" You ignore The People to your own detriment.

You read it here first.

BZ