I had a hard time determining how to title this post. I was torn between another IDIOTS on parade, or Daily Dictator, or something about how we are going to hell....again.
In the end, I thought I would present this news as something new. But, let me say that I find that these IDIOTS are acting like dictators and their actions will doom us to hell.
The horrific stupidity come from a Carter-appointed district court judge. 'natch. Well, more specifically I found the news at World Net Daily.
May I present to you the reason why we should elect strong conservative people to government? May I present the outcome of not doing so? This is what happens when Socialists gain power.
[U.S. District Judge Barbara B.] Crabb, appointed to the court in 1979 by President Carter, determined the statute violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Uh-Oh. That does not sound good at all. Are you worried yet? I know I am. Whenever a Socialist-driven judge who was appointed and approved by Socialists get in to a non-elected seat for life makes decisions about the right to practice religion, I start to protectively guard my groin.
So, what decision did she make? On what case?
A federal district court in Wisconsin today ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb issued the decision in a case filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based atheist and agnostic group that challenged the constitutionality of a 1988 federal law.
The law gives the president the authority to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.
In her opinion, Crabb wrote that in her view of case law, "government involvement in prayer may be consistent with the establishment clause when the government's conduct serves a significant secular purpose and is not a 'call for religious action on the part of citizens,'" citing a high-profile Ten Commandments case, McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU.
"Unfortunately," she wrote, the National Day of Prayer law "cannot meet that test."
So, because the law allowed the presiden to make a national call to action on something that is religious, then that violated the Constitution?
No, wait. She did not rule that it violated the Constitution per se. She said it violated the case law. Remember, liberal progressive activists judges never rule based on the Constitution. They only look at case laws. They rule based on what others have ruled. Whether those rulings were Constitutional or not is beside the point.
Even though this law did not ESTABLISH a religion, did not ESTABLISH that only a certain religion could be practiced, did not ESTABLISH that people could only pray using a certain religion or to a certain "god", this judge found that the law violated the establishment clause.
You know, like how digging a hole deeper actually makes the hole shallower. Like when the sun sets below the horizon to make the day brighter. Like how we go to sleep standing on our heads in order to work.
It's IDIOTS like this that are destroying our nation and our culture.
Can there be any greater reason to elect true Constitutional Conservatives to positons of power? Their actions, like appointing of judges, determines the condition of our land, our laws, and our culture.
When a judge can just willy-nilly rule a law invalid based on some self-perceived notion of impropriety without ever looking at the Constitution, then we are in dire straights. We are in a terrible predicament folks. Listen to more of her reasoning:
"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion," Crabb wrote, "because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."
Liberals and Socialists believe that the government must be PURELY secular. Any hint that it even suggest or recognize non-secular activities, then it must violate the "establishment" clause.
But what is even worse. Yes, I said worse. What is more IDIOTIC, worse, and ...... impeachable, is that this judge has completely overlooked - or more likely disregarded - case law.
Did we not have recent case law that ruled our pledge of allegance legal? Do we not have case law that ruled our motto legal? Do we not also have certain case law that has ruled that displays of the 10 commandments are legal under certain conditions?
This judge needs to be impeached. When a judge rules on cases without basing their decisions on the Constituion or even current case law, then that judge is acting like a tyrant and judging beyond the law.