The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 16)

What Mr. Neumayr points to is a direct consequence of the work of that sainted, Democrat icon, that great Fabian Socialist: FDR. FDR fully realized the potential of the court when they ruled against his early New Deal initiatives. He attempted to stack the court and the Democrats from that day to this have relied on judicial fiat in lieu of legislation.

p>I do believe there is a step just short of armed insurrection that may re-establish a sort of balance between the branches. There is no constitutional reason why there has to be 9 justices. All Congress has to do is abolish the positions of three of them: Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg. No hearings. No impeachment. No trial. Just hand them their severance packages and one-way tickets to Europe. The only question is: does our legislature, with the intestinal fortitude of an amoeba and the backbone of a jelly fish, have the grit to do it. I'm not holding my breath. br> -- John Jarrell br> San Antonio, Texas /p>

Judicial activism is merely the penultimate source of the woes Mr. Neumayr enumerates. The Constitution lies dead not at the feet of judges but at those of Congress and the American people. No recent President nor Congress has exhibited the will to ignore the Supreme Court when it has overstepped its bounds. We have acquiesced to the Court's authority in all manner of things never intended by the Constitution. And why? Because that's precisely what left-liberal politicians have wanted and Americans have accepted. What couldn't be legislated on our march to socialist, PC and diversity nirvana would be litigated.

I cannot understand how anyone can blame the judges for doing precisely what they were hired to do. If these same federal judges were not ensconced for this purpose, why the desperate Senatorial battle to prevent the seating of those who consider themselves bound by the Constitution? Already there are indications that some Republican Senators are shying away from using the "nuclear" option to stymie Democratic judicial nomination filibusters. So much for their political courage. Oh, and let's not forget the Republican obeisance to Arlen Specter.

Even President Bush appears intent on trashing the First Amendment by chiming in on the chorus to limit or prohibit the 527 political advocacy groups. If the First Amendment was meant to do anything it, was meant to forbid the restriction or prohibition of political speech. But all branches of the Federal government have colluded in restricting political speech with McCain-Feingold and now the politicos want to close the 527 "loophole."

p>Blame the Judiciary for what is most certainly a Constitutional crisis? No way, Jose! That argument is the ultimate red herring. The whole situation could be turned around tomorrow if we possessed the political will to do so. br> -- Dennis Sevakis br> Bloomfield, Michigan br> (P.S If you don't think this is the case, just check out Michelle Malkin

topics:
Islam, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, NATO, North Korea, Socialism, Fascism