The Most Dangerous Branch (cont'd)

By |2023-05-20T09:39:21-04:00May 2nd, 2007|

The Supreme Court’s overturning of the death sentence in Smith v. Texas is an apt example of how activist judges subvert popular will (see my previous post on this subject). The point here is not that the majority opinion is incorrect on the merits, although it is for the reasons ably stated by the four dissenters. The point is to illustrate how, little by little, and under the pretense of restraint, major issues of public policy are being decided by the courts instead of by the elected branches.

No fair reading of the record in Smith v. Texas leaves any doubt that the defendant […]

The Most Dangerous Branch

By |2023-05-20T09:39:21-04:00May 2nd, 2007|

John Armor performs a crucial service with his three recent blog entries about liberals’ use of the courts to counteract democratic self-rule (see John’s article today about the Supreme Court opinion in Smith v. Texas, and his two articles about the “ACLU Against Wisconsin”). Ostensibly, the articles have different subjects: The article about the Texas case discusses adjudicating capital punishment, and the articles about Wisconsin discuss efforts by allies of the losing candidate (and of the ACLU) effectively to reverse the outcome of a judicial election. In fact, the articles bring great insight to the same pernicious development, i.e., the role of liberals in […]

The Hazleton Rebellion

By |2023-05-20T09:38:15-04:00March 2nd, 2007|

There have been several rebellions in American history which were important--not for their military power--but for their politics...

No Geneva Conventions for Terrorists

By |2023-05-20T09:38:28-04:00September 27th, 2006|

By Peter Ferrara — Contrary to what the mainstream media has been reporting, the Supreme Court in the Hamdan case did not hold that the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists based on the terms or provisions of those conventions. The Court held that language in a Federal statute, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applies the protections of the Geneva Conventions to terrorists. The terms of the Geneva Conventions themselves exclude terrorists from the protections of the Conventions.

Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board

By |2023-05-20T09:37:32-04:00December 4th, 2000|

Bush v. Gore, concerning the all-important Florida vote for President in 2000, came up on an accelerated basis from the Florida Supreme Court. Only 14 counsel filed briefs in the case. On December 4, 2000, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled as the ACRU brief, and only that brief, recommended. It struck the Florida Supreme Court decision, requiring that court to rethink and rewrite its decision. When the Florida Supreme Court failed to get the message, the US Supreme Court took the case, and seven Justices ruled that the Florida court had violated the US Constitution.

Read the Brief

Bush v. Gore (Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, et al.)

By |2023-05-20T09:37:33-04:00November 6th, 2000|

Bush v. Gore, concerning the all-important Florida vote for President in 2000, came up on an accelerated basis from the Florida Supreme Court. Only 14 counsel filed briefs in the case. On December 4, 2000, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled as the ACRU brief, and only that brief, recommended. It struck the Florida Supreme Court decision, requiring that court to rethink and rewrite its decision. When the Florida Supreme Court failed to get the message, the US Supreme Court took the case, and seven Justices ruled that the Florida court had violated the US Constitution.

READ THE AMICUS BRIEF HERE.

Go to Top