Firearms rights advocates under the jack-booted thugs of the Ninth Circuit and Hawaii judiciary have no hope of ever having their rights restored under the current conditions. This column gives some historical perspective on the powers of the judiciary and some possible solutions, though I'll be very surprised if the Uniparty "Republicans" use their Congressional majorities to do anything about it. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

President Trump and the Runaway Judiciary: The Founders Have Provided the Remedy

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/president_trump_and_the_runaway_judiciary_the_founders_have_provided_the_remedy.html

Excerpts:

Recently, a rogue U.S. District Court Judge issued and a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed one of the most egregious judicial decisions in American history, dramatically undermining and thus relegating the issue of the sovereignty of this nation to the courts and unelected judges.  This was the culmination of decades of ever expanding judicial activism enabled by the failure of Congress to enforce its prerogatives and rein in this runaway usurper of political power.  The matter of the supremacy and influence of the judiciary in a representative republic has been an issue of contention since this nation’s inception, as the founders, while geniuses in their overall concept of government, erred greatly in the creation of an unaccountable Judiciary by relying on a factious Congress to serve as a check and balance on a co-equal branch when necessary.
.....
Countering Hamilton’s argument was Robert Yates, using the pseudonym “Brutus” in the Anti-Federalist papers, who contended that his primary concern was that judges would substitute their will for the plain text of the Constitution.  He wrote: 

    There is no power above them [the Courts] to control any of their decisions.  There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature.  In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven.  Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.

Thomas Jefferson, a staunch opponent of a powerful central government, also recognized the potential abuse of power by an out of control Judiciary and a recalcitrant Congress. In a letter to a Mr. Jarvis in 1820, Jefferson wrote:

    You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our Judges and their power are the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.  When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity.  The exemption of judges from that is quite dangerous.

Thomas Jefferson was a man with great foresight and wisdom.  Too bad he isn't alive today and our POTUS.

There is no perfect system. Lifetime appointments were decided to avoid the risk of judges who would sway too easily with the times. It is certainly an interesting discussion on which would be better but you cannot point at the idea of lifetime appointments as bad without also recognizing the benefits.

I am not sure which justice said this but one of them wrote that the SCOTUS does not have the last say because it is all powerful but that the SCOTUS decision is all powerful because it is the final say. I think I am killing the original wording, let me see if i can find it. I cannot find it right now but what was essentially being explained was that there is nothing magical about a SCOTUS decision, just that a SCOTUS decision is final because the SCOTUS is the final court.

There is no perfect system. Lifetime appointments were decided to avoid the risk of judges who would sway too easily with the times. It is certainly an interesting discussion on which would be better but you cannot point at the idea of lifetime appointments as bad without also recognizing the benefits.

I am not sure which justice said this but one of them wrote that the SCOTUS does not have the last say because it is all powerful but that the SCOTUS decision is all powerful because it is the final say. I think I am killing the original wording, let me see if i can find it. I cannot find it right now but what was essentially being explained was that there is nothing magical about a SCOTUS decision, just that a SCOTUS decision is final because the SCOTUS is the final court.

Where did you "research" that nugget?

The reason justices are given lifetime appointments is for job security.  It prevents them from being fired if they make a decision that is unpopular or politically damaging for someone.  It has nothing to do with "the risk of judges who would sway too easily with the times", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Where did you "research" that nugget?

The reason justices are given lifetime appointments is for job security.  It prevents them from being fired if they make a decision that is unpopular or politically damaging for someone.  It has nothing to do with "the risk of judges who would sway too easily with the times", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Wait what?  Literally that sentence means what you are saying....In different times lifetime appointments would avoid the risk of judges who have differing opinions....that's nearly the same as "being fired if they make a decision that is unpopular or politically damaging for someone".

Wait what?  Literally that sentence means what you are saying....In different times lifetime appointments would avoid the risk of judges who have differing opinions....that's nearly the same as "being fired if they make a decision that is unpopular or politically damaging for someone".

"literally" is not "nearly the same"...

"literally" is not "nearly the same"...

But you're taking what he wrote literally. He was using "literally" metaphorically.

But you're taking what he wrote literally. He was using "literally" metaphorically.

He's being "Literal" at heart, which means "nearly the same" thing.

Wait what?  Literally that sentence means what you are saying....In different times lifetime appointments would avoid the risk of judges who have differing opinions....that's nearly the same as "being fired if they make a decision that is unpopular or politically damaging for someone".

It's a little early to be drinking, isn't it?

Look at what you and EEF wrote.  He said it's about the opinions of judges being consistent over time rather than switching out judges with different views.  That's incorrect.

The truth is the justices need to be firewalled from reprisals (being fired/not elected again) when they make an unpopular ruling.  It's about doing what's right regardless of political correctness, popular opinion, or political fallout.  It's about following the Constitution without fear of losing their jobs.

Hopefully that makes it clearer. 

The truth is the justices need to be firewalled from reprisals (being fired/not elected again) when they make an unpopular ruling.  It's about doing what's right regardless of political correctness, popular opinion, or political fallout.  It's about following the Constitution without fear of losing their jobs.

Let me edit (fix it for you) the above to reflect the reality of what happens in the Ninth Circuit regarding Second Amendment rights:

The truth is the justices more or less are firewalled from reprisals (being fired/not elected again) when they make an unconstitutional ruling.  It's about doing what's unconstitutional regardless of the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent, informed legal opinion, or approving political grandstanding.  It's about violating the Constitution without fear of losing their jobs.

Does anyone need to be an attorney, much less a higher echelon judge, to understand that when the framers wrote "the right of the people to bear arms" they did NOT mean "in your home or business only"?

Let me edit (fix it for you) the above to reflect the reality of what happens in the Ninth Circuit regarding Second Amendment rights:

The truth is the justices more or less are firewalled from reprisals (being fired/not elected again) when they make an unconstitutional ruling.  It's about doing what's unconstitutional regardless of the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent, informed legal opinion, or approving political grandstanding.  It's about violating the Constitution without fear of losing their jobs.

Does anyone need to be an attorney, much less a higher echelon judge, to understand that when the framers wrote "the right of the people to bear arms" they did NOT mean "in your home or business only"?

We still have the impeachment process for judges.  Not sure if being completely wrong would be ground for impeachment.  SCOTUS reversing them, as they do more often than any other circuit court, is usually the remedy.

Where did you "research" that nugget?

The reason justices are given lifetime appointments is for job security.  It prevents them from being fired if they make a decision that is unpopular or politically damaging for someone.  It has nothing to do with "the risk of judges who would sway too easily with the times", whatever that is supposed to mean.

How little you understand the justice system, always have to insert some conspiracy theory. Try reading this book, very enlightening on the history of major decisions and aspects that went into creating what the SCOTUS as an institution is today. A judge who can be replaced too easily or too quickly can serve to trample on rights when it is politically expedient. Think about protections for the minority from the majority. Having a life term serves as a protection to their ultimate duty of upholding the constitution.
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Our-Democracy-Work-Judges/dp/0307390837/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1487406864&sr=8-2&keywords=stephen+breyer

How little you understand the justice system, always have to insert some conspiracy theory. Try reading this book, very enlightening on the history of major decisions and aspects that went into creating what the SCOTUS as an institution is today. A judge who can be replaced too easily or too quickly can serve to trample on rights when it is politically expedient. Think about protections for the minority from the majority. Having a life term serves as a protection to their ultimate duty of upholding the constitution.
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Our-Democracy-Work-Judges/dp/0307390837/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1487406864&sr=8-2&keywords=stephen+breyer

It's a little early to be drinking, isn't it?

Look at what you and EEF wrote.  He said it's about the opinions of judges being consistent over time rather than switching out judges with different views.  That's incorrect.

The truth is the justices need to be firewalled from reprisals (being fired/not elected again) when they make an unpopular ruling.  It's about doing what's right regardless of political correctness, popular opinion, or political fallout.  It's about following the Constitution without fear of losing their jobs.

Hopefully that makes it clearer. 

Now that you point it out, you're right.  Boy, I was SO FAR off base.  Thanks very much for setting me straight!!   

Now that you point it out, you're right.  Boy, I was SO FAR off base.  Thanks very much for setting me straight!!   

Those two statements you bolded are two sides of the same coin. Omnigun saw it.

Do you basically just try to disagree with everything I saw as a matter of practice irregardless of how correct it is?

Those two statements you bolded are two sides of the same coin. Omnigun saw it.

Do you basically just try to disagree with everything I saw as a matter of practice irregardless of how correct it is?

I only disagree with you when you're wrong.  It seems to keep me quite busy, too!

And omni was wrong, too, as pointed out by Mac and Puna.  So go ahead and hitch your wagon to him if you like.  You're still wrong.

I only disagree with you when you're wrong.  It seems to keep me quite busy, too!

And omni was wrong, too, as pointed out by Mac and Puna.  So go ahead and hitch your wagon to him if you like.  You're still wrong.

Claiming yourself to be right does not make it so.

I posted a source, one that would be considered quite authoritative on such matters. You provided no source yet claim I am wrong. I rest my case.

Claiming yourself to be right does not make it so.

I posted a source, one that would be considered quite authoritative on such matters. You provided no source yet claim I am wrong. I rest my case.

Omnigun was your source.  How is he "authoritative?"

President Trump and the Runaway Judiciary: The Founders Have Provided the Remedy

The second Amendment ? ? ?

How little you understand the justice system, always have to insert some conspiracy theory.

REALLY, SERIOUSLY ?? Your going drop that line ??

some one who thought that the constitution only applied to citizens ??

Omnigun was your source.  How is he "authoritative?"

Refer to reply #11, to which you yourself replied.