The dictators in black robes are crying foul again because Congress did the right thing and passed a resolution in response to Supreme Court decisions being based on International Law and the case law of other countries. They’re also protesting the suggestion that the dictators should be subject to impeachment if they abuse their power.
Not having the ability to impeach or discipline our Supreme Court justices is exactly why we’re in the position we’re in today – along with the filibustering, litmus test loving, liberals in Congress. Un-elected judges can overrule the elected representatives of the people, thereby stripping the American people of their right to self government.
The use of international law and case law from foreign countries in judicial decisions is proof that our courts have been taken over by globalists, and our national sovereignty is in danger like it never has been before. President Bush’s judicial nominations in his next term could determine which direction this country goes – toward the New World Order where the masses are ruled by the elites with no representation or recourse, or toward restoring our national sovereignty and our constitution.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, delivering his 19th and most likely his last year-end report on the federal judiciary, returned on Friday to one of his longtime themes: a need to safeguard the independence of federal judges from intrusive Congressional oversight.
Criticism of judges and their decisions “is as old as our Republic” and can be a healthy part of the balance of power between the branches, the chief justice said in remarks issued by the court’s press office. But he added that criticism from Congress had “in the eyes of some taken a new turn in recent years” – an oblique locution that nonetheless left no doubt that he himself was among those discerning a new and disturbing twist to the attacks.
Chief Justice Rehnquist mentioned a measure Congress passed in 2003 requiring special scrutiny of judges who issue sentences shorter than those called for by the federal sentencing guidelines. In his year-end report last year, the chief justice said this approach “could appear to be an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges.” …….
NOTE: If you are not registered at the NYT, you can use one of the following logins to read the article: