I reviewed two court opinions this week. One deals with a Louisiana police search conducted without a warrant. The other deals with the Reverend Michael A. Newdow (the guy who - successfully - sued to have the words "under God" declared illegal in the 9th Circuit) suing Congress to have the congressional chaplains declared illegal.
Yes, I said Reverend. Newdow is "a minister ordained by the Universal Life Church and the founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science." Hilarious. He isn't really about the government not endorsing any "traditional" religion...he really wants government mandating adherence to his religion (belief in whatever he happens to believe in). I do admit, by the way, that I have no idea what the word "amendmist" means.
I began writing a post analyzing both of these cases, because the opinions are important. When I realized that all I was doing was recognizing that these two courts issued reasonable opinions, I stopped writing and began this post instead.
Does anyone want to discuss these two cases? Sometimes a court will get things right. I do not measure court opinions based on whether they agree with me. In fact, many courts do usually follow the law. What does that mean to a movement like that behind CourtZero.org? It means that the simple fact that some judges in the vast pool of judges in the country are good public servants does not remove the enormous danger that activist judges pose.
To me it means that the judicial branch and our form of government are worth protecting, and protecting it includes shutting down the activist judges.
Yes, I said Reverend. Newdow is "a minister ordained by the Universal Life Church and the founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science." Hilarious. He isn't really about the government not endorsing any "traditional" religion...he really wants government mandating adherence to his religion (belief in whatever he happens to believe in). I do admit, by the way, that I have no idea what the word "amendmist" means.
I began writing a post analyzing both of these cases, because the opinions are important. When I realized that all I was doing was recognizing that these two courts issued reasonable opinions, I stopped writing and began this post instead.
Does anyone want to discuss these two cases? Sometimes a court will get things right. I do not measure court opinions based on whether they agree with me. In fact, many courts do usually follow the law. What does that mean to a movement like that behind CourtZero.org? It means that the simple fact that some judges in the vast pool of judges in the country are good public servants does not remove the enormous danger that activist judges pose.
To me it means that the judicial branch and our form of government are worth protecting, and protecting it includes shutting down the activist judges.
