Search This Blog

Showing posts with label judicial activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judicial activism. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Time to Impeach Some Judges!

Indira Talwani, Empress
I'm sick and tired of activist judges who legislate from the bench. Who do they think they are? And what gives them the right to overrule hundreds of ELECTED officials? Where is their constitutional authority to overrule Congress?

Federal Judge Blocks New Law Defunding Planned Parenthood

A federal judge on Monday extended a block on a provision in President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that aimed to strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood. 
The ruling ensures continued taxpayer funding for the nation’s largest abortion company, prompting criticism from those who argue no public dollars should support organizations killing babies in abortions.

Monday, July 21, 2025

Good News Monday

Thought I'd start the week with some good news. Remember that "All things work together for good for those who love the Lord and serve according to His purpose." So God brings good out of even the bad news. But it's still nice now and then to see the good news happening. So check out these items of interest from the past few weeks and remember to thank God for them.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Judge Napolitano Weighs in on 9th Circuit Circus, What I term the #HumptyDumptyCourt



Liberal judges are traitors! They don't care about the Constitution. They care only about their liberal agenda and, like #HumptyDumpty, say that words mean whatever they say no more, no less. As Judge Napolitano says it is a "dishonest piece of work." Congress gives this area of law "exclusively to the president."

It's time for Americans to demand that the courts uphold the law. We have lost the "checks and balances" when the courts usurp both the law-making body, the Congress, and the Executive branch, the president and his administration.

A demon of chaos has infiltrated the courts and, as Catholics know, some demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting. Will you join me in offering up a "fasting" sacrifice today as well as prayers that this travesty is resolved soon? I also invite you to pray the rosary in honor of Our Lady of Lourdes on her feast day for the security of our beloved country.

And join me in labeling the 9th Circuit Court and their liberal traitor allies as the #HumptyDumptyCourt.

Friday, February 10, 2017

Is the Travesty of the 9th Circuit Decision Part of the Plan?


On to the Supreme Court.
Will courts uphold the Constitution and laws passed
 by Congress? Or will judicial activists continue
to legislate from the bench?
Trump is no fool and here's a blogger's opinion who believes it's all part of the plan. I sure hope he's right!

Final Justice
"I think this is going to reach the Supreme Court and the offending executive order will be allowed to stand. To begin with, the executive order is almost inconsequential. President Trump could have achieved the same objectives without making any noise by simply implementing the long standing US immigration law. Even today he can simply hurry and implement a policy that will in effect be indistinguishable from the executive order or even harsher. The President can do that without interference from the courts. Why did he do this in the fist place? I believe he wanted the Liberal judiciary to take the bait."

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Lawless 9th Circuit Court Continues Shameful History of Judicial Activism!

Injunction on Travel Ban Ruling Retained

The 9th circuit court is the most overturned appeals court in the country. In 2012 86% of the courts rulings were overturned. One wonders whether these judges have ever read the Constitution or know how to read laws passed by the Congress including the one that gives the president wide authority to limit travel. Since the injunction on the travel ban, people from the countries identified for "extreme vetting" are flooding into the country, 1/3rd from Syria. Anybody with an ounce of common sense should be worried. Pray that this is quickly resolved in favor of the President.

The Washington Times has a poll on whether or not you approve of the 9th Circuit's decision. Vote here.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Guest Post: Unwarranted Federal Judge Ruling Jeopardizes National Security

Don't tell me what the Constitution really says, I'm the
judge and I say it says whatever I say it says!
By David Martin

District Court Judge James Robart has jeopardized America's security by blocking President Trump's Executive Order on immigration which temporarily bars travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. 

The State of Washington filed action against the Executive Order on January 27, alleging that sections of the order are contrary to the Constitution, and Robart ruled in favor of the action by issuing a restraining order against the E.O. on the grounds that it does not "comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution." (Judge James Robart)

Robart has declared the "unconstitutionality" of the President's ban on traveling Muslims on the grounds that it discriminates against religion, however, his move is unfounded because not every religion is protected by the Constitution.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Guest Post: Another Assault on Religious Speech and Judicial Child Abuse

Editor's note: SB 1172 does not address pastors per se. It forbids all mental health providers, licensed counselors, etc. from engaging in reparative therapy or other efforts to help children overcome same-sex attraction. A number of other states (here, here, here, and here) have also introduced legislation banning conversion therapy. This definitely affects Christian mental health professionals among whom are pastors who are also licensed mental health professional. Not only that, but it stands to reason that if counseling minors to avoid acting on same-sex attraction is unethical and abusive as implied in all the laws, how can the state not intervene to protect the young from pastors and Church representatives who dare to commit the crime of telling children to resist feelings of sexual attraction toward same-sex friends? These laws which are proliferating around the country are the spearhead that will initially target and limit both the free speech of minors and mental health professionals, but will ultimately be expanded to engulf pastors, youth leaders, etc. Remember when abortion was only legal for the "hard cases?" That's how the liberal tyrants always begin and they always use children to accomplish their goals. The reality is that the gay and lesbian community wants to recruit children because it is their principal way of expanding. Even their language indicates how they prey on children. Consider the terms "chicken" and "chicken hawk." The state has become a pimp for gay activists who want no limits on their ability to recruit children into their perverted lifestyle.

California court declares it is illegal to advise minors about their gay tendencies
by David Martin

Friday, March 18, 2016

Hypocrite Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Is No Moderate! Invoke the "Biden Rule!

Where does one begin to discuss Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland?

Let's start with the process itself. Obama insists that he has the right to name the next Surpreme Court justice and all the Democrats are screaming across the aisle at the Republicans, "Do your job!", i.e., give the president what he wants!

Actually, the Senate's job is to uphold the Constitution and advise and give consent to court appointments.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Catholic Faith Under Fire

We all knew it had to come. The homosexuals have been suing photographers and caterers who won't work their "weddings." Of course they will sue the Church for "discrimination." So check out this catholic hospital facing the wrath of two lesbians who demand healthcare coverage for their "marriage." I suspect they are probably a front couple with an organized homosexual lobby behind them. The new homosexual strategy is sue-sue-sue. The courts appear to be lackeys of evil. Liberal judges carry water for all kinds of abominations. When the proponents of evil can't get what they want they often take it out of the legislative arena and into the shadow government of the 9-man Supreme Court oligarchy. (I know, I know - generics are out of fashion. I amend: "the six men/three women oligarchy.)

 Here are a few of the abominations given to the country by the Supreme Court:

Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857) upholding slavery.
Buck vs. Bell (1927) upholding forced sterilization.
Engel vs. Vitle (1962) upholding a ban on nondenominational prayer in the public schools.
Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) upholding bogus right to privacy later used to support numerous evils.
Roe vs. Wade (1973) upholding abortion on demand through all nine months.
Lawrence vs. Texas (2003) upholding the right to engage in deviant sexual practices.

We can only imagine the abominations that will take place in the future. Imagine the field day over Obamacare. What an opportunity to hammer Christians. Got your rosary?





Tuesday, July 28, 2009

American People Split on Sotomayor Nomination

Less than half of Americans support Sotomayor nomination. Most Americans don't want judges legislating from the bench! It's not too late to fight. Let your legislators know there's a price to pay for robbing Americans of their constitutional rights.

"Wendy Long, of the Judicial Confirmation Network, told LifeNews.com the polling results bear out what her group has said about Sotomayor from the start.

"'President Obama promised he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would decide the 'hard' cases by relying on personal feelings and politics,' she said. 'He fulfilled that promise by nominating Judge Sotomayor, whose record of speeches, law review articles, and judicial decisions, demonstrate that she and President Obama are on the same page when it comes to judicial activism.'"

Eighteen senators say they will vote against the nominee, more than any voting against a Democratic nomination since 1916.

Keep telling your senators to "Vote No" on judicial activism and preferential treatment. The Supreme Court needs a nominee who rules by law not giving special advantages to minorities and discriminating against white men. The symbol of justice is a blind woman holding balance scales to weigh the merits of the case. Sotomayor's weights are rigged. Call your senators and urge them to oppose this pro-abortion judicial activist.

Capitol switchboard: (202)224-3121
Toll-free numbers:
1-866-220-0044
1-877-851-6437
1-800-833-6354
1-888-355-3588
1-866-808-0065
1-877-762-8762
1-800-862-5530
Congressional on-line directory for individual offices

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Obama names sexist judicial activist to Supreme Court

Well, it's official -- Obama has named Latina judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The controversial appeals court judge has made some pretty weird statements that ought to raise eyebrows. Consider the uproar if a white male judge made the following statement about a woman or a black:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” (Statement made in 2001 at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley)

She also waved her judicial activist flag in 2005 (on video) speaking to Duke University Law students saying, “court of appeals is where policy is made...." Do we really need another member of the court who makes law by finding rights in the "penumbra" of the Constitution like Harry Blackmun with Roe v. Wade? Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it up according to their life experiences and gender identity.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Another Court-Ordered Contribution to the Culture of Death

Montana judge: Man has right to assisted suicide
By AMY BETH HANSON Associated Press Dec. 6, 2008, 5:16PM


HELENA, Mont. — A Montana judge has ruled that doctor-assisted
suicides are legal in the state, a decision likely to be appealed as the
state argues that the Legislature, not the court, should decide whether
terminally ill patients have the right to take their own life. (more)