The tyranny of liberal judges

[Conservative]

Early in his career Jefferson was concerned for the independence of the judiciary in order that it be strong and to prevent injustice. However, when the federalists focused their efforts on the transfer to Washington of the power reserved in the Constitution to the States, using the power that they had obtained in the judiciary, he began to view with alarm the subversion of the judiciary and its independence of the nation. To the prevention of their objective Jefferson devoted the rest of his life. The following quotations may be found in Jefferson: Magnificent Populist, by Martin Larson, pp 136-142


Judicial tyranny was the subject of many of his letters ...

BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. — Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804



He said judicial tyranny made the Constitution "a thing of wax."

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819



Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters 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. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820



Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny.

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823



He saw where judicial tyranny was leading.

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. — Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821



He saw judicial tyranny as a subtle undermining of the Constitution.

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820



Jefferson saw judicial tyranny as an all-out assault on the Constitution.

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821



He saw judicial tyranny as the greatest danger to the nation.

… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823



For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.
… One single object ... will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825


http://www.restore-government-accoun...l-tyranny.html

[SmarterthanYou]

jury nullification. we the people are indeed the final arbiter of the constitution and laws created by the legislature. Do not be swayed by the illegal oaths judges put upon jurors in an attempt to usurp the constitution.

[Jarod]

So its only Liberal Judges?

[Disillusioned]

jury nullification. we the people are indeed the final arbiter of the constitution and laws created by the legislature. Do not be swayed by the illegal oaths judges put upon jurors in an attempt to usurp the constitution.

Jury nulification is not an illegal practice, it's important and vital. When you talk about we the people though, you know you're talking about the twelve dumbest americans they could find who couldn't lie their way out of jury duty and are now going to yawn their way through the trial. At least that's what most people do. I personally would prefer a panel of 3-5 judges on a court descision, pay them less than they do now, and get some people who are familiar with the law rather than people who say guilty because that's what the other 11 said and they don't wanna be there all day.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Thomas Jefferson was a dumbass.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

jury nullification. we the people are indeed the final arbiter of the constitution and laws created by the legislature. Do not be swayed by the illegal oaths judges put upon jurors in an attempt to usurp the constitution.

No they aren't.

[SmarterthanYou]

Jury nulification is not an illegal practice, it's important and vital.

I'm a nullification advocate. 'illegal' refers to the oaths that judges make jurors take.

When you talk about we the people though, you know you're talking about the twelve dumbest americans they could find who couldn't lie their way out of jury duty and are now going to yawn their way through the trial. At least that's what most people do.

way too true, unfortunately.

I personally would prefer a panel of 3-5 judges on a court descision, pay them less than they do now, and get some people who are familiar with the law rather than people who say guilty because that's what the other 11 said and they don't wanna be there all day.

judges are the problem though. they don't want the people judging the law. that takes away their power.

[SmarterthanYou]

No they aren't.

yes, we are.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'm a nullification advocate. 'illegal' refers to the oaths that judges make jurors take.


way too true, unfortunately.

judges are the problem though. they don't want the people judging the law. that takes away their power.

are you advocating that any case decided by a judge can be overturned by a jury?

[Disillusioned]

I'm a nullification advocate. 'illegal' refers to the oaths that judges make jurors take.


way too true, unfortunately.

judges are the problem though. they don't want the people judging the law. that takes away their power.

And because they know that most people have about as much information on the laws as it takes to get their beer, pay the fewest taxes, and keep their neighbor from playing his music loudly. Judges are there hopefully to keep legal procedings somewhat on legal grounds.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

yes, we are.

You are not a jury.

Juries are stupid. They come to random opinions, and will do whatever the fuck they're told. When they don't do what they're told, it's usually for stupid reasons. God help us if our freedom is in the hand of these drooling oafs.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Thomas Jefferson had a penchant for saying stupid things in a passion that would later come to greatly damage the republic. Madison was not an arch-federalist like Hamilton, but he was much wiser in his sentiments. But Thomas Jefferson gets all of the credit for the revolution and the constitution, when he had little to do with either. You know why Thomas Jefferson opposed judges? Because judges stood in the way of his power. Thomas Jefferson had no consistent ideology. All he wanted was power. And it was incredibly damaging to the early republic when people took his mindless ramblings as irrefutable bits of genius, such as the Virgina and Kentucky Resolutions, which directly lead to the nullification crisis and the civil war. Shall Jeffersons ghost come back to haunt us and tear apart the republic once more? Shall we never be rid of this demagogic specter that threatens to balkanize America and end freedom forever?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Thomas Jefferson had a penchant for saying stupid things in a passion that would later come to greatly damage the republic.

sorry...didn't read the rest...this alone made me LOL

could be the understatement of the century or just another hack statement

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You are not a jury.

Juries are stupid. They come to random opinions, and will do whatever the fuck they're told. When they don't do what they're told, it's usually for stupid reasons. God help us if our freedom is in the hand of these drooling oafs.

no doubt true in many cases, but not in all cases. further....do you not want a jury of your peers?

[SmarterthanYou]

are you advocating that any case decided by a judge can be overturned by a jury?

huh? any criminal case decided by a judge was done by the defendants choosing, as they have a choice between jury trial and bench trial. the defendant is totally responsible for the end result.