QUICK LINKS
Why Should We Care Who Sits on the Supreme Court?
Most everyone cares who sits on Washington's highest court.
A look at the recent decision to uphold DOMA (traditional marriage) gives us a clear snapshot of the problem.
I, as many of you, took a deep breath and uttered a “thank you” to the Lord as we learned that DOMA had been upheld.
But now it’s time to exhale.
Four of the Washington Supreme Court Justices, in their ruling on DOMA, overstepped their Constitutional role by trying to legislate from the bench. Instead of interpreting the law as the majority did, these judges tried to define what the laws “should” be, not what they are.
Once again, we saw judicial activism in its highest form.
The high level of interest in Faith & Freedom's Judicial Voter’s Guide reflects two things:
First, the secularist progressives have learned that it is very difficult to push their agenda by a vote of the public. The majority of the public does not agree with them. Not only on marriage, but on a variety of issues. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for them to elect judicial activists. Its one of the few ways they can advance their agenda.
If you will recall, it was the loyal supporters of the gay-rights agenda in the Washington State legislature that publicly opposed HB2661 going to a vote of the people. These people must elect activist judges to continue to advance their agenda.
Secondly, people of faith and conservatives, in general, have become weary of the façade.
Where once people generally trusted judges to strictly interpret the law, because of judicial activism, people have become suspect and therefore highly interested in who sits on our state and national courts. People of faith do not want judges to do anything other than strictly interpret the law. Secular progressives want judges to help advance their agenda, and too many judges have complied.
This is a window of opportunity that we must not miss.
There are three highly-qualified candidates for the Washington State Supreme Court and we have less than 30 days until the primary election, September 19th.
Please distribute as many Judicial Voter Guides as possible. (Click here to download the Voter's Guide in PDF format). Distribute them to friends, family, your church, and any group who shares our concern and interest.
Be sure to vote in the primary. In most cases, if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote; their name will appear alone on the general ballot in November.
Let’s create change.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to have these blogs delivered to your email inbox.
23 Comments:
Besides alot of prayer, this victory will be won by Believers who practice what they preach, who practice justice and righteousness by voting. In other words, they WALK the "talk".
Currently I am walking the talk by serving on a human rights council, which is nothing less than another arm of the Democratic Party. Unofficially, of course, human rights councils, including this state's commission, with it's first openly gay man chairman, is hostile to traditional values, and all their organizations, including you and your church, unofficially, of course, and paid for by you, the taxpayer.(Exceptions are made for pagan religions, and ultra-left-wing "churches.")
More judicial challenges to come from these groups. They are well organized, well-funded, besides your tax monies. Even unions subsidize many of these groups, sometimes through conduits such as the United Way. People need to divest themselves of any contributions to non-profits going through their unions, or on the job through the United Way. Give directly to the many worthy Christian organizations, especially Faith & Freedom, fighting for your right to have, to express, and to practice your religious beliefs. It is imperative. If you worked on the inside of the enemy lines as I do, you would break out in a fast run to support righteous causes. Please VOTE!! Due to my working in enemy territory, I must remain anonymous. But PLEASE...pray for me. Thank you.
Gary, you're misprepresenting the roles of the courts and legislature here.
Of course, it is the role of the Legislature to create laws and to follow the whims of popular opinion.
But it is the role of the courts to ensure that these laws do not unfairly benefit or harm some individuals over others, regardless of popular opinion.
The men who founded our country invented this ingenious system of checks and balances to protect all of us.
What you propose are powerless courts that do not ensure a majority of people impose their will upon an unpopular minority. You want the courts to rubber-stamp the will of the people and the legislature. Why even have a court system then if all they do is read the law to us? Wouldn't such a system leave each of us vulnerable at some time or another?
I suppose you are still angry the courts stepped in to allow interracial marriage. I suppose court-imposed desegregation was an outrage, too. Were these activist judges, or were these judges ensuring that our laws treated us each equally? I think we all agree it's the latter.
If "the people" tired of Christians and decided to enact laws that unjustly harmed them or denied them access to privileges the rest of us had (say, denial of marriage), would you still want the courts to stay out of the way? Or would you want them to overturn such unjust laws -- which you today call "activism"?
It's easy to cry "activism" when the courts rule in a way that does not please you. But it's another thing when you are the one facing the injustice.
Hi folks, I'm still looking for specific answers to my questions from the previous post...
1) How does FISA prevent spying?
2) What activities does FISA prevent?
3) How does FISA 'give unbelievable avenues of communication to the terrorists' as Gary stated would happen?
4) How does FISA slow anything down when the NSA can basically do anything they want and ask for the warrant afterward?
Anyone?
FISA doesn't. It's just partisan, political rhetorhic. Conservatives like Gary are standing behind the Cheney-Bush position because they think Bush will push their extremist values even though they continue to get crushed in Congress (See the FMA).
Hello 1:17PM!! I am sooooo happy to hear from you!
"it's first openly gay man chairman, is hostile to traditional values, and all their organizations, including you and your church, unofficially, of course, and paid for by you, the taxpayer.(Exceptions are made for pagan religions, and ultra-left-wing "churches.")"
I enjoyed this. I too worked at a liberal organization. They talk about how "open minded they are" and "tolerant" and then spew hateful words and attitudes towards stable people or conservative people.
So while they call everyone hypocrites, they are the hypocrital ones because they claim to be so open minded and tolerant--unless you are stable, traditional, conservative or (fill in the blank). Clearly they are open minded and tolerant as long as you agree with them. Because I can assure you they are very INtolerant of anything Christian, or traditional.
They talked about helping the poor because that sounds so nice and nobel--but they didn't give of their own time or money. They wanted everyone else to pay for it and do it (unless they were paid well for it).
They had the nicest offices I have been in. How can a non-profit be nicer than an office inside an international airport? The answer is because they took government money (which is paid for by you and me) and squandered it. If they had excess money at the end of the year they would look for ways to spend it fast--like hanging expensive prints on the walls.
They reap in the benefits and are extremely well paid. I took a lesser position than I had in a corporation, yet made more money for less responsibility. By the time you took into account all the vacation, personal days, and holidays, I worked 10.25 months of the year after only a year there.
Some of the people there were great. Most were people who couldn't cut in their field and resented people who could. They try to surround themselves with down-and-outers so they can feel better about themselves or because it is the hip thing to do. Not out of love or self-sacrifice. It was out of a feeling of superiority.
That is why some liberals want to do everything for people and give them everything--they believe they are inferior people and the superior people (the liberals themselves) must do it for them.
I prefer the conservative position of helping people help themselves.
"But it is the role of the courts to ensure that these laws do not unfairly benefit or harm some individuals over others, regardless of popular opinion. "
It is the role of the court to apply the constitution and to apply law.
Nothing more.
"Or would you want them to overturn such unjust laws -- which you today call "activism"?"
Freedom of religion is a guarantee in the constitution. Freedom to marry whomever you want is not.
Here is what Dan Swecker, the prime sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act Bill of 1998, said in a Seattle Times article on Wed. August 16:
"What is society's interest in defining traditional marriage? If we had no government institution called marriage, people would choose to live together based on their feelings for each other or for achieving some common purpose. We would soon recognize that only one type of relationship would rise to the level of critical government interest and concern--that is the relationship between one man and one woman, because it has potential to produce offspring."
"Society would quickly determine that providing incentives to keep these relationships intact, for as long as possible, should be a very high priority. Through reasonable legal means, we would make provisions for these relationships to hold property, share benefits and provide the best possible nurturing environment for the next generation. We would also determine the conditions for the resolution of these benefits and responsbilities in the event that the marrriage is terminated. That is exactly what we have done in defining marriage. It is important not to change the focus of people entering into the marriage contract. This is not about feelings and it is not about the mutual benefit of the two parties. It is about the next generation. The best interest of children is to be raised by the biological mother and father. Society needs to do more to encourage moms and dads to stay together and make the sacrifices necessary to take care of kids."
"Supporters have said same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage and family by reaffirming commitment and fidelity. But judging by data about the Netherlands, where homosexual relationships gained legal recognition in 1998, the opposite is happening."
After going into detail about the Netherland findings, he goes on to say:
"One might argue that we could easily include other relationships without hurting the traditional institution of marriage. The homosexual community says 'gay marriage' is one of those. What about a polygamous relationship in which a man has two or more wives? Or a bisexual who wants a husband and a wife? What about nonsexual relationships, such as same-sex siblings; an elderly parent dependent on an adult child; two good friends, and so forth? All of these relationships have value for the parties involved. Why not include them as well?"
"The answer is, we need to keep government focusing our resources on the critical group we originally identified, the children. To do otherwise would simply reduce resources available to sustain children and families of traditional marriages and diminsih the level of societal commitment to this one important."
"Children are the future of any society. Although it may not be the only way, protecting traditional marriage is the best way we can take care of our kids."
"Conservatives like Gary are standing behind the Cheney-Bush position because they think Bush will push their extremist values even though they continue to get crushed in Congress (See the FMA). "
I think you have that backwards. If only 35% of this state disagrees with Faith and Freedom, doesn't that make your position (assuming you are in that 35%) the one with extremist values?
The arguement that the FMA is evidence of extremist values is flawed. The problem is making a change to the constitution. Many who voted against the FMA believe it is a matter for each individual state. It is not evidence that the Congress disagrees as many have stated they believe marriage is between a man and a woman--but the issue should be left up to the states.
To my friend asking the good questions about FISA......
Here is a website with a wealth of credible information on FISA: /www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/
Following are some relevant extractions from a speech made by Attorney General Gonzales on January 24,2006. I could paraphrase it for you--but if it were me I would rather get it straight from the original source.
One thing I forgot to grab is a statement about the continued classified nature of the program, which limits some of the data available.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.
This program, described by the President, is focused on international communications where experienced intelligence experts have reason to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a terrorist organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
This program is reviewed and reauthorized by the President approximately every 45 days. The leadership of Congress, including the leaders of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress, have been briefed about this program more than a dozen times since 2001.
These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confusing, or wrong. And unfortunately, they have caused concern over the potential breadth of what the President has actually authorized.
Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.
Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.
A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.
We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on our branches of government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the War on Terror, and one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack. And we cannot afford to fail.
First of all, the concern over what the President is actually doing isn't from misinformed press accounts, it is the result of accurate press accounts of his past statements (ie: video tape) demonstrating repeated lies. He has also demonstrated that he and his team will do anything for political gain. I can go into specifics if you'd like, but I'm confident you know deep down inside what I'm talking about.
2nd, FISA isn't a 'vital tool' as the President has stated (what a joke). It's supposed to be a means to expedite spying, but what's the point when they go around it at will. Also, how can you possibly say that they are using FISA 'to it's fullest' when you have know idea what they are doing.
The only point you have made that would implicate FISA as an impediment is that they might be slowed down because they would have to be careful to make sure there is a good reason for spying as it would ultimately have to be approved by the court. In reality, the FISA court has been a rubber stamp with virtually 100% approval. This administration has never been shy about operating in questionable legal area, and I don't think risking the occasional rejection would be prohibitive. Sure it's more work, but as the President constantly reminds us, 'it's hard work' fighting the terrorists. As I've said before, throw more resources at it.
So is that it? You claim they wouldn't go after as many people as they do because they'd fear the warrants wouldn't stand? Pretty weak, my friend. Do you think they're sloppy or just meek? I don't think their either, and I don't buy the argument.
The question I'd really like answered is Gary's outlandish statement that following FISA law would 'give unbelievable avenues of communication to the terrorists'. Gary?
This is a very simple matter to clear up. If you don't support tough action on terrorists you are aiding the terrorists. You are for America and our right to be pro-active or you are not for America. Very simple.
"I can go into specifics if you'd like, but I'm confident you know deep down inside what I'm talking about."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Are you one of those people all outraged because the president was lying about not knowing the levee would be breached from Katrina?
Then refused to acknowlege that he wasn't lying and that some people haven't mastered the english language enough to know what "breached" means? I'll bet you are.
Well, astute people saw that video clip exactly as it was. The president had been informed that the levee could be topped.
But hysterical, mean spirited people didn't seem able to distinguish that a levee being topped (which means water will come over the top of it) is very different from a levee being "breached" (which means destroyed).
8:53 PM so I gather that you weren't really asking a question? You were really bucking for a fight?
I don't understand why you spend so much energy trying to be contrary, angry, and contentious.
I've been to liberal web sites and I don't see conservatives going on there being belligerent.
I'll bet you are just miserable inside.
To stay on topic, it's clear that you have no justification Bush's violation of FISA law.
btw - statements like 'If you don't support tough action on terrorists you are aiding the terrorists. You are for America and our right to be pro-active or you are not for America' are nothing more than a false choice and a meaningless talking point. This administration is the master of the false choice by constantly misrepresenting our position.
I submit that since no one has been able to defend Gary's outlandish statement that following FISA law would 'give unbelievable avenues of communication to the terrorists', the honorable thing is for him to is to apologize for being mistaken and retract the editorial.
You will perceive this as being 'contrary, angry, and contentious', but you can't dispute the accuracy. Sorry.
How embarrassing, but the above post should say -
"no justification 'for' Bush's"...
&
"the honorable thing for him to 'do' is"...
I apologize for the grammatical error. One should never proof read themselves in a hurry.
Hello 6:24 PM
Around Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a resolution called Authorization for Use of Military Force.
This did 2 things:
1) It specifically recognized the President's authority under the Constitiuon to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the US.
2) it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to use all "necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" to prevent furture attacks.
This makes clear we are at war.
As long as electronic communications have existed, the US has conducted surveillance of those communications during wartime***without a warrant***.
Roosevelt did this after Pearl Harbor, Wilson intercepted cable communications between US and Europe and Lincoln wiretapped telegraphs durin the Civil War--all without warrants.
Many, many people believe that FISA doesn't even apply.
And you already have the cumbersome, sluggish procedures required to follow the FISA (see above). Have you ever written a legal brief? It is not fast or easy. All the requirements and labor needed take away from the pursuit of intelligence--and slow it down to a snails pace--thus giving "unbelievable avenues of communication to the terrorists"
No I didn't claim "they wouldn't go after as many people as they do because they'd fear the warrants wouldn't stand?" That has nothing to do with it and is not true. Please visit the web site provided earlier, and you will see the opposite is true.
"In reality, the FISA court has been a rubber stamp with virtually 100% approval. " That is a John Kerry quote and doesn't really apply (again they don't fear not getting approval).
And yes, I can "dispute the accuracy"
I am out of time here.
I gave you a good web site for the DOJ that includes the act itself if you have any more questions.
Have a good week and peace to you.
Peace to you as well.
Thanks to an independent judiciary, Mr. Bush and Company will have to follow the law.
And thanks to the upcoming election, we will have congressional investigations and find out what this administration has really been up to.
Sinclair Lewis: "When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Alas - I think we are waking up.
Things are looking up! :)
Obviously the ACLU allowed the stay of the decision because they would not want the blood on their hands if FISA falls , people die, and then the court reverses itself.
Furtermore , the FBI and the 911 Commission identified this problem with warrants and FISA . Not the Court , they do just fine , its the application process . Sometimes two weeks . The problem was streamlined somewhat witht he Patriot Act and the bureacracy working on the problems , but if everyone recalls the problem with the3 guy whose laptop showed the airplane training for the terroists .. Not sure if that info would have stopped 9/11 , but they had the laptop before 9/11 and the warrant came after ..
So all the Bush hating appears to be just that , the President was shown a problem , and tried to fix it for our safety . All these liberals who are droolin at the possibility of we becoming less able to keep an eye on what these murdering scum bags are doing will be the first screaming when something happens . Civil liberties are great when you have the protection of the greatest country in the world and all you want to do is bad mouth it . When trouble hits , yeah , see who is sooo brave then .
So the ACLU spent all the time and money to force the spying to be done within the law, and then said 'never mind' when they won because they were afraid of the consequences of victory? Your right, that's really obvious! I don't know how I missed it.
The 911 Commission blamed the delays on inefficiencies in the FBI and Justice Department, not the court. Inefficiencies in the those departments don't make it bad law. It's typical of Bush to reward bad performance by allowing them to ignore the law.
What did the laptop have to do with FISA?
Do you really believe liberals don't want this country secure? You've been listening to the right wing talking points. Here's a point to consider, we want a secure country - we just believe that this incompetent administration is only making things worse and making us less secure. Please, tell me anything they've done well. And don't say we haven't been hit again because it's years between hits. Just like last time, it had been many years until we got hit - on Bush's watch.
Plus, based on history, we're worried about what spying is really taking place. Is that why they are so adamant about no oversight?
Your not understanding or not choosing to , the laptop had information , the present system did not allw for the lap top to be anyalzed without a warrant from FISA . The procedure too0k so long before the FISA Court got the information 9/11 occured ... lAPTOP obtained before 9/11 , procedure took so long that is was not to after .
So Bush , with recommendation from the FBI and advisors signed one of those Executive orders .
I do not think Liberals have any understanding of who and what we are fighting . That they believe if we are "nice" they wll be nice. That when we follow the rules , they will .
I totally agree that there have been many mistakes with this Administration . That there will be many mistakes with the next , regardless if it is a democrat , most likely will . The republicans pork party is pathetic ,
but year , many liberals hate Bush so much they are glad his numbers are way down ,
We do bad in Iraq , democrats win .
Lousy way to gain power if you ask me . No plan , no stated plan anyway , just cashing in on failure.
Should be a big fight within the democratic party in 2008 ... The left has taken them back from the Clinton power brokers , and its going to be very weird...
ok, you're right - the laptop was a FISA issue, except that it shouldn't have been. The FBI didn't ask for a warrant because they thought they didn't have the evidence. They did.
I think this is the bottom line. We both agree that we would have this administration error on the side of being too aggressive in spying.
My side, however, wants this to occur with oversight because we don't trust Bush to limit the spying to our enemies. FISA was originally created after Nixon to ensure that the government spying wasn't used for political purposes. We believe this administration is capable of spying for political purposes and want some assurances that this isn't occurring. Many instances, especially Valerie Plame, indicate that these guys will operate at the margins (& beyond) for political gain. We want the NSA off limits as a political tool and oversight is the only way to be sure.
So, Bush & Company, be overzealous in your pursuit of the enemy. Spy, spy, spy. Know what the enemy is up to. Go ahed and make some mistakes because your over zealous, it's ok. Just do it in accordance with FISA by asking for warrants afterward so there is some oversight. And if you get turned down sometimes, no harm done, you already did the spying. We can work that out if you are willing to work with the court.
I don't think it is so much a matter that people believe the Democrats don't want the country secure.
I think it is more a matter of believing the Democrats and liberals underestimate the danger we are in which puts us at risk.
I guess my question then is, if this administration understands the danger better than Dems, why haven't they protected the real high risk items (ports, airplane cargo, 'nookuler' plants, chemical plants), secured the borders, improved international relations, prevented rogue nations from going 'nookuler', secured the loose nukes, etc. - all Democratic priorities. We think the current policies are putting at greater risk.
Post a Comment
<< Home