Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
You are here:  Experts > News/Issues > U.S. Politics > Supreme Court Cases > Judges in the US
Topic: Supreme Court Cases
Expert: Paul Edward Zukowski
Date: 9/2/2001
Subject: Judges in the US

Should judges consider the social consequences of their decisions? What if the case involves an individual who has committed a hideous crime and the judge is being asked to release the individual on a technicality?
Please incorporate an example from today along with your answers, so I will understand better.

Get the answer below
Hi Shelley

>>Should judges consider the social consequences of their decisions?

No, they are bound to rule by the laws of the state.
Those that go outside of those guide lines (if they can)
is referred to as judicial activism and is a abuse of power. Judge Fuller rapes my children's souls Tells me as a father they can not go to religious or private schools. Steals a life time of asserts turns it over to the mother because I wanted to be involved with my children. Ignores years of alienation.  Abuses power by hiding evidence, ignoring facts and fails to follow the law.
The classic modern example of judicial activism is Roe VS Wade abortion case. If you read the US Constitution there is no right to privacy anywhere in it.


Many people who have not read it are surprised how limited the government is supposed to be.

Back to Roe VS Wade the opinion in the case was 80 pages long and go through tortured logic to explain this decision.
Most opinions are about 10 pages. Regardless how you feel about abortion this was a bad law.
Because they was no real basis for the case, you see all the political protest regarding abortion. They know this could easily be tossed out by a new ruling on a new case.  They also know it is a coin flip if abortion will legal at all if it had to be made legal by state legislatures making it law. Since the 1960s liberal political activist have used courts with liberal judges on them to advance an agenda they could not get through the political process.
Conservatives by definition do not engage in judicial activism.

Another thing you find if you read the constitution it doesn't say there is a separation between church and state. This is what it says.
Amendment I Unless you are a non custodial dad. I have a right to keep my children away from the "states" brain washing of my children in the "state school system. But I was wrong the activist judge can make parental decisions without my consent.!! It appears the constitution is a joke.  You might as well wipe your ass with it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What it really says is they can't make an official state religion like a The Church of England. You can't stop people
taking part in any religion.

It is unconstitional to stop expression of religion in schools. Yet courts have done this.

Take the Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Who is the militia? All able bodied citizens not otherwise in government service. What law should they make regarding guns?

Article I Section 8.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The federal government is supposed to be providing guns and ammo a structure to use the militia and citizens are obligated to take part.

See you have a court being activist by not over ruling unconstitutional laws. ALL the gun control laws are unconstitutional. People should be sueing the government because they are not getting their free guns & ammo.
No the National Guard is not the militia, it is part of the
US Army.
They do sell rifles at
Clinton tried to cut this off in 1995 and it failed, so they
removed the funding and things are not real cheap anymore and the ammo is no longer free plus shipping.
The DCM was replaced by CMP in 1996.
The Department of Civilian Marksmanship was around since right after the the US Civil war to get military arms into
civilian hands. The National Rifle Association was founded
to provide the training in use of arms. I was not political till 90 years later.

States have also failed in their responsibly to the militia. They passed it off to the CMP/NRA affiliated gun clubs.

So judicial activism can be action or inaction by the courts.

Article III of the constitution address the courts.

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for
their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or
which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another
state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens
thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under
such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed;
but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the
life of the person attainted.

That is it.

>>What if the case involves an individual who has committed a hideous crime and the judge is being asked to release the individual on a technicality?

Most technicalities are not trivial. We live under a constitution. If the governments breaks the rules we set up they should walk. Most things refered to as a technicality fall under 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th amendment. They are as follows;

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So as you can see these are not minor things

Back to List of Judicial Abuse Stories