The American Dictatorship of the Radical Right

Food for thought from another website.

====

The American dictatorship of the radical right includes the very committee members who could act with impartiality. It can’t happen now. Unless and until this unelected gang of outlaws is removed from office, nothing can possibly be done to stop them. If one did desire to thwart their machinations, where would one sensibly begin? Our far-right federal judiciary? The far-right House of Representatives? The far-right Senate? The dictator in the White House? The CIA he appointed? The EPA he directs? That nice Republican representative you meekly allowed to steal office to help effect the agenda of the Neo-Cons? Do you imagine all this is some crazy, disorganized happenstance?

America is now as far right as Chile ever was. And, as in Chile and every other dictatorship, the ruling party is deliberately gutting its own nation’s economy to destabilize and hopefully destroy the middle class. Only a healthy middle class boasts enough educational and economic leverage to thwart the far right’s agenda. However, the right has fought for decades to weaken labor unions, as well as the educational and health care systems in America. A poorly educated populace will follow the right more readily than a well-educated populace, which recognizes the radical right exists solely to enrich its own leadership at the expense of everyone else, period.

Now, with tort reform (to drain the wealth from lawyers), a crippled Social Security system (to limit the wealth of individuals in their later years), more far-right judicial appointments (to restrict and turn back social progress and enforce the whims of its political base, the so-called Christian evangelical community), control of the nation’s media (to prevent identifiable dissenters from being cast in a positive light, while streaming propaganda to the masses) and a seemingly endless stream of middle class-bashing legislation this White House is parading before congress, the radical right’s dominance for decades to come is all but guaranteed.

So late in the game, are there any Patrick Henrys out there? The REAL people need you.

---

And now the Republicans turn their attention to the Judicial branch, threatening that if the courts "Legislate from the bench" they will strip the judiciary of it's power. Tom DeLay openly threatened judges after the Terri Schiavo case and now efforts are underway to place certain issues "Off-limits" to the courts: A law was introduced that would prohibit federal courts from hearing ANY case that involved the ten commandements in any way. Similar laws are being drafted that would stop courts from ruling on any issue regarding smae-sex marriage.

And let's not forget, "Dr." Bill Frist is threatening to rule the filibuster "out of order" allowing no way for democrats to stop Bush from appointing anyone he likes to the federal courts.

It's funny how history repeats itself. The Republican party was formed because the Democrats were too far to the right. The Republicans were, originally, the liberal party!

---

And isn't that scary, Feodor? It's weird how a party could stray so far from its ideological base, yet that's what has happened.
The problem is that the Republican party likes to harken back to those days in its rhetoric. And it's frightening.
While they're turning back decades of progress, they're continuing to label themselves as a progressive bunch of people.
Yep, a progressive bunch of upper-class white men.

Although, at this moment, I am in agreement with those who think the Judicial Branch of the government weilds too much power. It's suppose to be three heads with equal power. It doesn't appear to be so. I understand (and agree) how judges shouldn't have to be worried about politics, so they can rule, based solely on law; but they have too much power, and citizens are powerless to do anyhing about them. This is wrong, to me. I'm still investigating it, though, because I find it fascinating.

---

Well, it would take too much time and typing to post what I investigated; but, regardless of how you feel about the Terri Schiavo case, the Constitution does not grant the judiciary authority to ignore duly passed congressional legislation, and the courts' decision to ignore Congress' legislative directive for a full, fresh "de novo" review (which is an in-depth review)constitutes judicial tyranny. No judge did a de novo review. Of course, to do so, would have warranted the reconnection of her feeding tube. If the courst can just ignore the other two branches (and by doing so, supercede them), then there is an imbalance of power. To my way of thinking, at least. But, like I said, I'm still researching.

---

I wouldn't know about that. I don't listen to the radio. I did all my investigative stuff on the internet and in the library. There's also a case study about Lincoln, and his ignoring the judicial branch, when he felt it overstepped its bounds. Also, judical tyranny, is used multiple times in lots of other cases. It doesn't appear to be a new term. By the way PalJoey, you appear to spend a lot of time watching and listening to right-wing stuff. I can't imagine anyone doing that (or left-wing for that matter). Why do you? It seems to get under your skin. I always find it much better to avoid behaviors that are negative to my well-being.

---

Congress passed a law requiring the federal courts to hear the Schaivo case (After it had been ruled on mearly 20 times in Florida State Courts). The federal courts heard it and sided with Schiavo's husband (and the Florida courts). The federal judge who heard the case even acknowledged the vote was out of line. The congress also attempted to supoena her to testify before congress, which was ruled ()and certainly was) an abuse of their powers.

My big question about Terri Schaivo: Why her? This exact scenario (long term patient, no chance of recovery, taken off what ever life support, dies. Everyone is sad) happens HUNDREDS of times a year. Why her? Why was this one such a big deal?

Anyway, back to your charges Fyodor. Why do you feel the courts wield too much power? Do you really feel that they have wielded too much power since the 1860's? And, Yes, the constitution provides for a Judiciary branch that can "Over Rule" the other two branches. Someone has to have the final word: Hence the name "Supreme Court."

Edited to add: And yes, I read a lot of Right-wing stuff I disagree with, just like PJ (Apparently). While is it not good for my blood pressure (or my sunny disposition) I think it is important to know what they are up to.

Updated On: 4/5/05 at 01:15 PM

The really funny thing, Joe, is that this administration wants to stack the Supreme Court with radical right appointees. You won't hear about activist judges then, once abortion rights are rolled back, unions are busted down, child labor is reinstated, the minimum wage drops, health care goes bust...and your only hope of redressing your grievances will come at the hands of judges whose mindset fits in right with the people who caused these rollbacks.
I, for one, won't be in a position to care since I'll be in a death camp, wearing a pink triangle.

Yes, exactly. Which is how it is in the Constitution.
Which is why the filibuster is important.
If the Republicans really weren't intending to usurp power, they would be thinking ahead to the day Democrats have control of Congress again and could then use this new legislation to appoint their own judges and pursue their own agendas in all three branches of Congress.
That is truly frightening.

Sorry to get off track, and I know this post is long

FS – start with

GRISWOLD et al. v. CONNECTICUT

….The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy…..381 U.S. at 484

Then Roe V. Wade:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage,); family relationships, and child rearing and education.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 410 U.S. 113 (cites and references removed

Blackmun’s DISSENT in Webster:

Today, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and the fundamental constitutional right of women to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, survive but are not secure. Although the Court extricates itself from this case without making a single, even incremental, change in the law of abortion, the plurality and JUSTICE SCALIA would overrule Roe (the first silently, the other explicitly) and would return to the States [492 U.S. 490, 538] virtually unfettered authority to control the quintessentially intimate, personal, and life-directing decision whether to carry a fetus to term. Although today, no less than yesterday, the Constitution and the decisions of this Court prohibit a State from enacting laws that inhibit women from the meaningful exercise of that right, a plurality of this Court implicitly invites every state legislature to enact more and more restrictive abortion regulations in order to provoke more and more test cases, in the hope that sometime down the line the Court will return the law of procreative freedom to the severe limitations that generally prevailed in this country before January 22, 1973. Never in my memory has a plurality announced a judgment of this Court that so foments disregard for the law and for our standing decisions.
Nor in my memory has a plurality gone about its business in such a deceptive fashion. At every level of its review, from its effort to read the real meaning out of the Missouri statute, to its intended evisceration of precedents and its deafening silence about the constitutional protections that it would jettison, the plurality obscures the portent of its analysis. With feigned restraint, the plurality announces that its analysis leaves Roe "undisturbed," albeit "modif[ied] and narrow[ed]." Ante, at 521. But this disclaimer is totally meaningless. The plurality opinion is filled with winks, and nods, and knowing glances to those who would do away with Roe explicitly, but turns a stone face to anyone in search of what the plurality conceives as the scope of a woman's right under the Due Process Clause to terminate a pregnancy free from the coercive and brooding influence of the State. The simple truth is that Roe would not survive the plurality's analysis, and that the plurality provides no substitute for Roe's protective umbrella.
I fear for the future. I fear for the liberty and equality of the millions of women who have lived and come of age in the 16 years since Roe was decided. I fear for the integrity of, and public esteem for, this Court. I Dissent. 492 U.S. 490, 539]