JoeClarke.Net

Federal Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and mother were tragically executed by someone many were hoping would be a white supremacist. Almost to Lefkow's chagrin, it was only an irate citizen who did the deed despite even the best hopes of the Anti-defamation League, CNN, and CNN's Terror Tracker, Henry Schuster http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/03/schuster.column/. After the killer was found, Judge Lefkow's immediate reaction was that she was "relieved" that the perpetrator was not a white supremacist, which proves that the hatred for everything 'right' overrides even the natural grief one should have for one's murdered relatives. And so, the legacy of today's courts is that they hate what is RIGHT! Don't ask for rhyme or reason why they so despise conservative ideology. If it is wholesome, they hate it. If it is patriotic, they are against it. Is it, maybe, Biblical? Expect the lib contrarian courts to despise it. Separation Of Church And State? If it "sounds gody, it must be unconstitutional," they spout.

Renegade judges who renege on the Constitution will not be rounded up by homicidal maniacs or lukewarm Republicans. We must hound heaven and earth for justice in the judiciary. A grassroots movement will have to spread like wild fire in order to disappoint the lifetime appointed judges who are hell bound to dominate the American people. It has been said that "One man is one vote," yet now, "One judge is one million votes." As they frequently do, one judge can easily kill a Terri Schiavo, undo a majority-passed referendum, or legalize homosexual marriage without the clear consent of the American citizens.

Mark Levin of wabcradio.com has written an excellent tell all book which exposes the activist-judge history. The Men In Black have been tired of not being seen nor glorified such as the more visible Legislators and Executives, so they are on a rabid rampage to BE SOMEBODY. Judges don't want to be just bench sitters, calmly deliberating on the constitutionality of laws, so much as they want to quarterback from their thrones, and make new earthshaking, outlandish laws for the most ancient of all reasons: They want attention. The more bizarre, the better. Why would Ruth Ginsburg, O'Connor, Breyer et al. so desire to ditch the Constitution in favor of weighing International Law? Mere pride, arrogance, and intellectually effete barren snobiness - not to coin a phrase.

If Sodomy and Abortion are approved in the Constitution, then, what may we find next but possibly the permissibility of shortening the life of people in non-vegetative states such as Terri Schiavo. Maybe the United States should bow down to European Socialist Law. Maybe, we should consider the advantages of Communist Law.

Before the Supremes and the less supreme federal courts displace our Constitution with the Communist Manifesto, there needs to be a sea change/ground swell to oust these bench sitters.