QUICK LINKS
Judicial Confusion
Earlier this year, a Washington State Supreme Court Justice complained to the press that confusion was caused because of the "politicizing" of the judicial elections by some groups around the state.
The confusion began when judges became activists, making law and re-engineering society from the bench. Not when some of us "groups" finally got involved.
The confusion really began when the Courts began to move away from justice toward fairness.
Fairness is a wonderful word that most people want to embrace and impute to others. After all, isn't fairness treating people in the way we would like to be treated?
While fairness is a social virtue, it is a judicial fiasco.
In their attempt to secularize America, activist judges have purposefully tried to move society away from the church and religion, under the guise separation of church and state, toward what they call progressive secularism. In doing so, they have replaced administrating justice according to the law, with administering "fairness" according to their personal beliefs and agenda.
Pushing the misunderstood and misinterpreted comments of Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group of Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, some actvist judges have, in too many cases, moved America away from our laws which were based on Judeo-Christian law and teaching.
Once they have achieved that "artificial separation" they and they alone become as god and decide what is "fair" in every court case.
Indeed, the judicial elections have become politicized and confused, not because concerned citizens have begun to pay more attention to who is sitting in the judge's chair, but because through the process of public accountability the light has been turned on and things that were hidden are now seen by the citizens whom these judges serve.
They may not see accountability as fair, but it is for certain necessary.
In the spirit of turning on the light, Faith & Freedom will soon be distributing Judicial Voter Guides throughout the State of Washington.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add this blog to your email inbox or signup to receive a notification when the Judicial Voters Guide is available.
11 Comments:
I'm a Unitarian. That mean I'm out?!
Fair is interpreted differently from one individual to the next. What's fair for one isn't necessarily fair for the next, the next, and so on. That's why we have the law. The law isn't to be interpreted differently from one case to the next. That's where activist judges are getting into trouble, legislating from the bench. That's also why activist judges will find themselves unemployed. The law isn't meant to be meted out willy nilly depnding on what mood a particular judge woke up in on a given day.
I actually think things would be a lot simpler if we just rewrote the constitution and put God in it, just like the founders intended.
yes, it would be a lot simpler if we just switched to a theocracy like Iran. Strangely, that is exactly what the founders didn't want to happen.
The founders didn't want government to endorse one denomination over another. They never intended God to be left out of the picture. They new that His involvement would bless us and make us great. And it did. We are not flawless--but we are blessed and prosperous. The more we move away from Him the more things go down hill.
If the founders never intended to leave God out of the picture, how on earth did the fail to mention him in the founding documents of this nation? Are we to believe that they discussed and debated the constitution for a period of years during its drafting and ratification and STILL failed to make thier intent clear?
What hubris to assume that you know what the founders intended better than they. Had they intended to put God in the constitution they would have. They did not, ergo they did not intend to!
ummmm perhaps you would like to read the Federalist Papers and do a little research?
What hubris to make such unkind statements when you really don't know of what you speak. Even if you did know, your rudeness causes you to lose credibility.
I didn't say that the founders intended to put God into the constitution and forgot.
I said they never intended to leave God out of the picture.
3:38 PM I think you have misread what was said. Maybe you are looking for someone to take your anger and frustration with life out on. Seems like you are bucking for a fight.
Your Comment: "Had they intended to put God in the constitution they would have. They did not, ergo they did not intend to!"
Yeah, I guess the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, along with it's amendments aren't really founding documents of this nation, are they...
Note, the Preamble of the Constitution says:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Though it doesn't say anything specifically about God, it does mention "Blessings." Now I know we (meaning the people who live today, in these times) might assume that is a stretch to assume that "blessing" comes from God, but by it's primary definition and contextual usage in that era, a reasonable person would assume that that's where they expect blessings came from.
This type of language usage is also consistent with the Declaration of Independence which reads:
"...which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
-and-
"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
-and-
"...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."
-and-
"with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"
Maybe I'm wrong though, perhaps you're from Canada and talking about a different set of founding documents.
Dave
P.S. Also, note that the original constitutional articles were pretty much all to address how the government was to be run (i.e. it was a description of function document). They didn't have much to specifically say about God when it comes to running the government, but it might also be noted that the very first ammendment included the free expression of religion.
Dave that was really good.
Post a Comment
<< Home