Thanks be to God!

Judge strikes down NDAA. Turns out Obama can’t simply suspend Anglo-American law back to Magna Carta on a whim.

The problem, of course, remains that it was a bi-partisan coalition of Dems and Republicans who voted to give him that tyrannical power in the first place–and he only agreed to sign it when the last obstacle to his tyrannical were removed by that same coalition.

At present, judge is blocking that. If you think our Ruling Classes will now simply give up the attempt to solidify draconian power over the rest of us, you are not paying attention to the major trends of American political culture. This is a temporary victory. To make it permanent, the rest of us need to wake up.

  • Matt

    Woohoo! Great news!

  • keddaw

    Skipping the god part, I 100% agree. The only problem is that given it’s bipartisan there is no-one (remaining) who we can vote for who doesn’t want the right to kill any person (US citizen or foreign nation) that (s)he so chooses.

    While everyone’s fighting the minor social wars (gay marriage, contraception etc.) there is a major, constitutional guerrilla war being fought by those in power against the rest of us and most of us don’t even know it.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Ron Paul is still running ;) Also, check out the third parties. They’re opposed.

  • Les

    now, what about the “patriot act”? Isnt it an infringement against what we are supposed to believe?

  • Les

    I cant help but think this govt. intends to plunge us into a Spanish civil war, or a French revolution, or another Christeros war, if they dont gete their way.

  • Richard Johnson

    This is very good news. Let’s hope the decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, and that the pressure continues after the November election, no matter which party wins.

  • Deacon Nathan Allen

    Judge Forrest was an Obama appointment, too, which gives me hope for the independence of the judiciary and reminds us of the Founders’ wisdom in setting up the federal judiciary in a way that it could remain independent.

    • Richard Johnson

      Yes, but this wisdom is threatened every time a judge’s name appears on a ballot, such as what happened last election here in Iowa. If we want to preserve an independent judiciary that can stand as a bulwark against the hobnail shoes of an overzealous executive or legislative branch, we need to stop putting judges up for retention votes.

      • Deacon Nathan Allen

        The federal judiciary is not up for retention votes, holding as they do “their Offices during good Behaviour”. States, in a laudable effort to make judges accountable, have also opened the door to the political corruption of campaigns and huge donors to whom judges might be beholden.

        • Ted Seeber

          Which is why the Technocrat in me says that all laws should be written as if-then-else statements and be absolute.

          The Catholic in me cries that Imago Dei makes this an incredibly bad idea.

        • Richard Johnson

          “The federal judiciary is not up for retention votes…”

          Yet.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/newt-gingrich-judges-dictatorial-judicial-elections_n_1152828.html

          “In Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, the Fox News moderators announced that they would ask one question that had not been asked in previous debates: Is the judicial plan that Newt Gingrich talks up these days — to subpoena and impeach judges and abolish courts for controversial decisions — “totally irresponsible” or not? Gingrich received raucous applause when he answered by denouncing the judiciary as “grotesquely dictatorial,” arguing that it needs to be tamed by the legislative and executive branches, and calling for the abolition of “anti-American” courts.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X