California Judge Deserves Judgment

Well, we've been asking for prayer to be brought back into schools. We should have specified who we wanted them to be to I guess!
Gina

 

This is ridiculous. I vote we all start ignoring California's courts and their rulings. There's a reason Cali's courts are the most overturned in the nation....

 

Once you start bringing God into the public school classroom, it gets kinda hard to stop. This is why we should strictly enforce the Constitution.

 

The Constitution Prohibits the 'State' from making policy and interferring with Religion...

And, does not give them the power to excise religion from public life...

The language is plain enough... But, hearts are also wicked enough...

Bro Bob, I fully agree we need to get back to the old Granny's Warfare Prayer...

We talked about it last night at church...

As a people we tend to no longer be pasionate enough about anything to sacrifice for it...

Our prayers are, well... Lord? if it fits into your schedule and you feel like doing it would you please kindly ask that mean ole judge not to do this again....

No, many of us are Christians today because of Praying Grandmothers who simply continued to cover us in their prayers and would not take NO for an answer, even from God, in things that really mattered...

We know these decision are wicked, evil, unjust, and anti-Christ...

We may live in a pluarlistic Nation but it's time for the "dagon's" of the world to bow to the One True Living God!

That judge deserves and should recieve continuous sleepless nights and nightmares about *him* being aborted that way until he either hardens his heart, is judged reprobate and dies, or gives their heart to Jesus and repents and reverese the decision....

A few lightning strike would be nice, too!

And, while we are at it...

We need to be praying for Elijah-like knowledge of the enemy's plans for terrorism...

I vaguely remember a Bible story where a king was warring against Israel and every time he tried to move against Israel he be thwarted..

It got so bad he started accusing his closest advisors of spying for the enemy...

But, they quickly told him that there was a Prophet....

I don't really care if it's a 'Thus Saith the Lord!' or a 'chance' 'Coincidental' happenstance...

But, I know my God knows what they are trying to do and when... We need to ask Him to lets us know so we can thwart them, too.

 

The Christian God was in American public schools from the start. It didn't seem all that hard to put a stop to it Galation.
Gina

 

This kind of foolishness shows why this election is so important. Who do you want appointing judges? Bush or Kerry? That should be an easy choice. Unfortunately, some are not seeing it ...

 

Six out of the seven federal judges appointed by President Bush who have so far had occasion to rule on whether a state can prohibit partial-birth abortion have ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to do so.

In Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, they dismissed a homosexual group's lawsuit to obtain a booth and advertising space at a political convention. Bush appointee Justice Greg Abbott rejected the argument that a constitutional protection for free speech required a political party to provide a venue for an ideological group it did not approve of.

Clearly, on balance, Bush would appoint better judges than Kerry would. But would they be truly good judges?

Yet, in the Bush family the terms "strict interpretation" or "strict constructionist" carry their own pedigree. George W.'s father used such language to describe the sort of judges he intended to appoint before he decided to name David Souter to the Supreme Court. Since his confirmation, Souter has sided with the judicial activists on virtually every significant constitutional issue. Liberals thought that Souter would become the final vote needed to overturn Roe. In fact, he became the fifth vote to reaffirm it.

Constitutionalist judges resist straying from the Constitution. Sandra Day O'Connor, a cautious judge, said the court should not abandon Roe v. Wade. Antonin Scalia, a constitutionalist, said the decision had to go because it violated the fundamental law of our land.

Bush's record of appointing judges in Texas suggests he will appoint more cautious judges than constitutionalist ones, more O'Connors than Scalias. One analyst made an observation repeated elsewhere by others: "Bush;s judicial picks are not extreme... [They] don't carry an ideological flag with them to the bench." One paper quoted a University of Texas professor saying that Bush's approach "is not so focused on ideology [as] it is on reputation and ability." Tom Pauken, former chairman of the Texas Republican Party, calls Bush's appointments "a mixed bag" and says, "I would not have confidence that we might not see another David Souter on the Supreme Court in a Bush presidency."

SOURCE

[ June 03, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: NetPublicist ]

 

I said that exact same thing several months ago. But, to be a bit more specific, it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that is the most overturned court in the nation.



Sidebar: I've been following the events of the aforementioned case for a while, and, not surprisingly, there were many misleading implications made by the tabloid news agencies (discussed in the past elsewhere on this bb, so no need to go over them again). As per any story by NewsMax, I always prefer to reserve comment or opinion until I can verify the info via a mainline news agency. Does anyone have a link to help me out?

 

So far, there has only been one court rule it unconstitutional and one court considering it. If you have additional evidence please post it. The issue that they are ruling unconstitutional goes back to the fact the SCOTUS is controllign the shots right now. If we give Kerry the 2 or 3 nominations that are soon coming, we will be in teh same state we are in now for the next 30-40 years. The most recent Roe rulign was a 4-5 vote I believe. One from each side is retiring for sure, and I think the third possibility was a part of the 4 though I am not sure. That means that the pro life side will lose two votes and the pro abortion side will gain two. That means a 4-5 ruling just became 7-2 and it will be that way for the life of these judges, probably 30 years or so. All the while, people who claim to love life are casting a vote that will help elect for a candidate who has promised to make that 7-2 margin a reality. Where is the common sense?

 

The Republican branch of the Demopublican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the White House, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

They could simply remove the abortion issue from the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but they have not.

Vote Pro-Life, Reject the Do Nothing Republicans, Support the Constitution Party, Vote Peroutka!!!!

 

So far, there has only been one court rule it unconstitutional and one court considering it. If you have additional evidence please post it. The issue that they are ruling unconstitutional goes back to the fact the SCOTUS is controllign the shots right now. If we give Kerry the 2 or 3 nominations that are soon coming, we will be in teh same state we are in now for the next 30-40 years. The most recent Roe rulign was a 4-5 vote I believe. One from each side is retiring for sure, and I think the third possibility was a part of the 4 though I am not sure. That means that the pro life side will lose two votes and the pro abortion side will gain two. That means a 4-5 ruling just became 7-2 and it will be that way for the life of these judges, probably 30 years or so. All the while, people who claim to love life are casting a vote that will help elect for a candidate who has promised to make that 7-2 margin a reality. Where is the common sense? </font>[/QUOTE]The article I was quoting from was written January 14, 2000, so I am assuming these were apointed by the first President Bush, not George W., I will try to edit my post to clarify.

 

This was from an article in Human Events on January 14, 2000, so this article is referring to George W's father who appointed six out of seven federal judges who ruled in favor of partial-birth abortion.

If you will read the entire article that I linked to you will see that the Republican appointed judges have not been the heros of conservatism, and have sided with the liberals on many major issues. The only thing we have to go by for George W. is his record in Texas, which follows closely in his fathers footsteps of using the terms "strict interpretation" or "strict constructionist", but appointing more cautious judges than constitutionalist ones.

 

Those judges were appointed by Bush I, not this one. The abortion rights supporters know exactly what "strict constructionist" means and they are scared to death of it. At least with Bush, there is a chance. There is no chance with Kerry.

 

The abortion supporters were scared to death of George W's fathers "strict constructionist" appointments untill they saw them in action. Did you read the full article? George W. Bush's record of appointing judges in Texas suggests he will appoint more cautious judges than constitutionalist ones.

 

For a 5% chance(and I think the real chance is 0%), you are willing to endure all of the big government actions of George W. Bush?

Since 7 of the 9 current Supreme Court appointees were appointed by Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, there is absolutely no reason to expect George W. Bush to be to change the balance on the Supreme Court.

Besides, even though the Republican branch of the Demopublican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the White House, they have refused to even try to use Article III, Section 2 to restrict the jurisdiction the federal courts.

Vote Pro-Life, Reject the Do Nothing Republicans, Support the Constitution Party, Vote Peroutka!!!!

 

Why would anyone expect GW Bush to straighten any of this out? The judges in power are as much the fault of the Republicans as the Democrats, it seems to me. And Bush is an especially liberal Republican.

If you want to continue to drive our nation down the wrong road, join Bush at the polls and go for it. If you have a vision for a future longer than tomorrow's breakfast, demand change by supporting suport the CP and Michael Peroutka. and

 

And what??? And contribute to the election of pro abortionist John Kerry ... And give away your voice by shouting into the hurricance. A vote for Peroutka is a wasted vote. It makes a statement that won't be heard. It takes away the only chance to affect the political future of this country. It is sad to see someone who should care more than others deceived by such cheap rhetoric. Do something ... don't just stand there ...

 

One sure way to "waste"(your terminology) a vote would be for a pro-life person to vote for President Bush. His past terms as the governor of Texas and as president is solid proof of that.

 

We Peroutka supporters are. It's too bad you Bush supporters are simply going to be "wasting"(your terminology) your votes.