Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States to Ignore Federal Courts

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

It is time for a revolution to happen among the states and start defying federal overstep and illegal ruling from our courts. REVOLUTION AND SOON!

While dissenting from the recent Supreme Court decision rubber-stamping same-sex “marriage,” Justice Antonin Scalia warned his colleagues that with “each decision ... unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.” And a new poll shows that another such step has in fact been taken, with more Americans supporting the idea that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings. Writes Rasmussen Reports, “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials [dis]agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February.Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.”

This shift is clearly influenced not just by Obergefell v. Hodges (the marriage ruling), but also a late June ObamaCare decision so contrary to the “Affordable Care Act’s” text that Justice Scalia lamented to the Court, “Words no longer have meaning.” Not surprisingly, there was an ideological divide among poll respondents. As Rasmussen also tells us, “Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups. Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.”

Also not surprisingly, this pattern basically reverses itself when voters are asked if Barack Obama should be able to ignore the courts when he wants to. As Rasmussen wrote in February after surveying voters on that question, “43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”

As to the recent poll, Rasmussen writes that Republicans and conservatives being most likely to support state defiance of federal courts is perhaps “disturbing” because those groups “traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers.” But the reality is that these responses — conservatives advocating defiance of liberal courts, liberals advocating defiance for a liberal man, and Rasmussen indicating that the judiciary should have ultimate-arbiter power — reflect emotional reactions more than constitutional analysis.

First note that this gratuitous judicial-review power — where courts’ rulings on law are considered to constrain all three branches of government — is not found in the Constitution. Rather, it was unilaterally declared by the Court itself in the 1803 Marbury v. Madisondecision. In other words, Rasmussen’s supposition about the courts’ role does not align with constitutionalism.

But critics would say that this is putting it lightly. Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent that the Court has actually become “a threat to American democracy.” And this just reflects what founder Thomas Jefferson warned when he said that if the Court was not reminded of its impotence, if it comes to be viewed as having ultimate-arbiter (judicial review) power, our Constitution will have become “a suicide pact.” As I wrote just last week:

Jefferson explained the problem with judicial review, writing, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial review] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.... The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson also pointed out, correctly, that “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” …Judicial review is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson warned in 1820, “and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

READ THE REST OF THIS FINE ARTICLE HERE.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...mericans-want-states-to-ignore-federal-courts

 

[Webster]

*looks at the article...then at Liberty...then back-and-forth btwn. the two* I'd say something here, but the words I'd use to describe both The New American and the far-right whack-a-loon organization known as the John Birch Society would likely earn me a stern warning from the admins....

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

*looks at the article...then at Liberty...then back-and-forth btwn. the two* I'd say something here, but the words I'd use to describe both The New American and the far-right whack-a-loon organization known as the John Birch Society would likely earn me a stern warning from the admins....

You can call them anything you want I am just happy to see the growing resentment towards the federal government from the states that want to begin ignoring the lawless federal government. Bring on the Revolution!

 

[Webster]

You can call them anything you want I am just happy to see the growing resentment towards the federal government from the states that want to begin ignoring the lawless federal government. Bring on the Revolution!

Then they need to go ahead and take the first shot...otherwise, they're nothing more than damn parlor pinks...seditious parlor pinks at that, come to think of it.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Then they need to go ahead and take the first shot...otherwise, they're nothing more than damn parlor pinks...seditious parlor pinks at that, come to think of it.

Does not need to be a first shot. Just peaceful disobedience of this governments illegal actions and rulings. Now if the federal goes violent like they usually do then thats a different story.