Supreme Court usurps its authority again, part 6

I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com




https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367


The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”

Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.

I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:

September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

There is another slight change in my announced plans for posting. I received a comment from my post entitled “The Declaration of Independence” and I intend to comment on it. I first will finish this series on FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS and the obscene Supreme Court decision. I will then comment on the posted comment and then I will finish the posts on homosexuality and the California Supreme Court. That is the new plan.

I had planned on only one post in relation to the Supreme Court decision and FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. However, that has changed. In the Peoria Journal Star’s typical practice of providing balanced journalism, the paper printed four articles in relation to the decision. Three of the articles—an editorial by a national journalist, a political “cartoon” editorial, and an editorial by the on staff editorial writers—supported the Supreme Court decision. One editorial was opposed to the decision. (I have commented on three of the four in previous posts. I have not yet commented on the staff editorial writers’ opinion.) However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

In the mean time, the Peoria Journal Star published three more articles on the Supreme Court decision dealing with FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS on June 22, 2008, page A5 for a total of seven specific editorials on this one subject. As with their balanced reporting practices, two of the articles were in support of the Supreme Court’s obscene ruling and one was opposed to the decision. Thus, a total of five editorials supported the decision and two were in opposition. However, it doesn’t matter. The paper could publish 100 editorials in favor of the decision and every one of them would be—wrong, wrong, wrong!!!


Tonight’s post is an editorial published on June 22nd that is in opposition to the Supreme Court decision. The editorial is entitled “Majority decision is a dangerous overreach.” It was written by “Horace Cooper … a national security and constitutional expert and a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union.” (This is the ACRU not the obscene ACLU—my addition) The article is as follows:

“On June 12, a Supreme Court majority struck down the Detainee Act of 2005, the so-called military tribunals law. This law was passed by Congress to address the legal treatment of unlawful enemy combatants.

Not only does this decision run contrary to precedent and the Constitution, it is yet another dangerous example of the judiciary usurping the constitutional authority of the political branches of government.

Most importantly, this ruling stands sharply at odds with the national security reality that Americans face—we are in a global war with terrorists who seek to destroy our country and our way of life. This threat is real and actualized: They’ve attacked us at sea and on land, at home and abroad. The ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, by denying the seriousness of the threat, will hinder our efforts to save American lives.

While the errors in the case are numerous, several obvious ones must be addressed.

First, the decision marks the first time application (in the entirety of American history) of a constitutional right of habeas corpus for alien combatants held abroad in the course of an ongoing war. The opinion completely ignores the reality that the ‘writ of habeas corpus’ was always understood constitutionally and in common law as a matter exclusively for dealing with domestic detention—that is, detention inside the United States. This major power grab by an arrogant judicial majority discard nearly 200 years of precedent.

Second, the Court exhibits its most radical manifestation of judicial imperialism when it overturns the Detainee Act because the law was purportedly a means for Congress and the president to ‘govern without legal constraint’ outside the U.S. To ensure that it gets the final say, the court leaps past a basic and time-tested constitutional question of whether the litigants even have standing to raise a complaint in federal courts.

Their ill-considered actions now leave no logical reason why the court couldn’t use this same argument as a justification for interfering and overseeing detentions in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other place where the U.S. is or may be at war.

Third, this decision strikes down perhaps the most generous set of procedural safeguards ever afforded military detainees. Congress and the president worked carefully to craft a set of rules—having access to specialists and after careful review and debate. The court sets aside these findings and doesn’t even list a set of replacements, observing instead that lower courts will develop them subject to their review. (Thus, making lower courts the legislative body for this issue!—my addition)

This time-consuming process of discovery and navel gazing is precisely what the Constitution’s framers sought to avoid—especially with regard to national security matters.

Finally, the majority takes great pleasure in noting that there is no recorded case in American history of denying jurisdiction for a ‘writ of habeas corpus’ outside of the United States. This logic is exactly backward. It has been so overwhelmingly accepted that the writ only applies inside the U.S., should we be surprised that no one but the attorneys for desperate and dangerous terrorists and their liberal activists on the Supreme Court would make such an argument?

Not unlike America’s ‘catch and release’ immigration policy, the court’s actions envision a world where our soldiers risk their lives capturing and detaining some of the most deadly terrorists on the globe, only to find them eligible for release after a hearing. This is unconscionable and it will mean more Americans are at risk of dying.

While reported as a loss for the Bush administration, make no mistake: this ruling represents a major setback for national security. Embolden terrorists will be less likely to surrender or end their plans for another attack. Worse, they will in some sense feel justified with pursuing their hateful agenda.

This ruling not only shackles America’s efforts to prevail in this worldwide clash of civilizations, it gives energy and succor to an evil and restless enemy at a time when it should be given no sanctuary or encouragement.

In the final analysis, courts are not the appropriate agents for directing the sophisticated policy prescriptions of statecraft and national security. They are ill-equipped to assess the risks and benefits, and they are immune from the accountability instrumental in ensuring that policy makers act in a manner consistent with the interests and needs of the American people.”

AND MOST IMPORTANT, THE COURTS HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND POWER TO DO SO. THIS IS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE SUPREME COURT USURPING ITS AUTHORITY. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST SIT BACK AND ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. WE ARE EXPERIENCING THE COURTOCRACY WE HAVE PERMITTED TO DEVELOP. LIKE A NATION OF SHEEP WE DO NOTHING!!! THIS IS TYRANNY OF THE FEW.

This ruling is simply an illegal edict by a Supreme Court that enjoys rewriting the Constitution of the United States. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!! THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!!!

Article I, Section 8 declares “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” NOT ANY FEDERAL COURT; NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress has the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Historically, when Congress has not made such rules during time of war, who do you think made such rules? The Supreme Court??? NO!!! NEVER!!! It has been the President under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces—Article II, Section 2. Does the Supreme Court have the power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?” NOT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTUTITION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If that power is so listed, please tell me where it is because I have some knowledge of the Constitution and I have NEVER read it in the CONSTITUTION! NEVER!!! I haven’t read it because it is NOT in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)