So long as you have a populace with no connection or fealty to Natural or Divine Law you will have these unjust and corrupt outcomes. People who lack this connection will elect the same type of people to be their Governors, Judges, District Attorneys and Legislators etc. Those who do have a belief, loyalty and love of God must show it everyday to those around them. If they demonstrate this intense love of God and neighbor, hearts and minds can be changed. We cannot "hide our light under a basket"! Show your Love of God in everything you do and do not be silent. Evil can only flourish when good men do nothing and there is no better time to do something than now.
Satanic insanity can be understood in how the Clarity and sanity of St. Thomas Aquinas and Traditional Catholic Theology-Philosophy and the modernist unanchored deconstruction to absurdity that Philosophy has become. I sadly look back to my University Philosophy 1 course and how a course on St. Thomas would have been so much more beneficial, and time-resources well spent.
The medical ethics course is another example - 1/3 to 1/2 the course focused on essays and debates for-and-against Abortion when St. Thomas outlines how forcing self to accept sin and insanity policies as acceptable damaged mind-soul faculties, as we all been generations raising babies to adults with insanities as 'normal', mothers hiring Witches and their minions to torture our unborn children to death, silently screaming, on the mothers' whim and profits, sexually mind-body-soul mutilating children, ...
.. What next? Accepting open televised genocide?
The reality of the growing insanity of the West and other regions that Abortion is practiced should be proof and argument enough. Anyone that remembers the solid sanity of the West in the early 1970's and before may realize that 1973 baby-murder policies were that rock kicked that started this avalanche into Hell.
Judges have the power to interpret the law, but not to create the law. The power to create the law is held by the house and senate. Too many judges feel they are all powerful and they create the laws rather than interpret them.
Very true. Judges may only interpret the law, not make it. Today, far too many judges have overreached their authority. They need to be held accountable.
I would add another means of reducing government abuse of the courts: tell the jury they have the right to judge the law and the facts. Empowering juries this way scares the crap out of judges who prefer to be the law givers, and it assumes the jury are conscientious citizens.
Thank you for your comment. Could you explain more about what you mean by "judge the law and the facts"? Perhaps give an example? How does the jury judge the law if the members of the jury are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution and have not recently, if ever, taken a civics class?
Yes. I first encountered this issue as a Marine Corps Judge Advocate. The members (jurors) swear to apply their conscience, the law and the facts. The first time as defense counsel when I reminded them of their duty to apply their conscience, the judge interrupted me and told them, "that is what it says and that is not what you will do."
In a typical civil case in the US, the judge instructs the jury as to what the law says and he tells them they are to follow the law even if they disagree with it.
A strong juror will refuse to cower in a case that he/she thinks is unfair for any number of reasons and vote his/her conscience even if the facts and law the judge gave would point to another outcome.
It is known as jury nullification. It was applied in early American slave holding cases and in some marijuana possession cases.
The OJ Simpson acquittal was likely jury nullification.
The verdict in the first trial of the cops who beat Rodney King was likely jury nullification.
Thanks for your explanation. That makes sense. Each juror has the right to consider their own conscience as well as the law and the facts. We know that judges and prosecutors can sometimes distort the law and the facts.
As a young man I wrote a number of letters to the editor in our local papers discussing Jury-Nullification and how this is a real check on laws and courts.
As a result, I have never been called for Jury-Duty while housemates and my wife of 14 years was called twice. As far as I can tell those public letters seem the only rational reason.
Sad, if true. Not that I would want such a duty, but it is service and there is virtue in duty well executed. But consider what that states our Justice System as, rejecting jury-members based on informed states.
Jury of peers? For a good number of defendants, we can assume a jury of average or most likely below average educated & intelligent 'peers' and that is frightening for anyone that struggled with complicated philosophies and options in deciding on Right action that might be illegal but justified as an edge case.
It most certainly explains how the phrase “convicted felon” became a non sequitur during the 2024 election. Virtually no one believes DJT actually committed a crime against anyone
So long as you have a populace with no connection or fealty to Natural or Divine Law you will have these unjust and corrupt outcomes. People who lack this connection will elect the same type of people to be their Governors, Judges, District Attorneys and Legislators etc. Those who do have a belief, loyalty and love of God must show it everyday to those around them. If they demonstrate this intense love of God and neighbor, hearts and minds can be changed. We cannot "hide our light under a basket"! Show your Love of God in everything you do and do not be silent. Evil can only flourish when good men do nothing and there is no better time to do something than now.
Thank you for your heartening message. More Americans are feeling more hopeful and are starting to speak up.
Satanic insanity can be understood in how the Clarity and sanity of St. Thomas Aquinas and Traditional Catholic Theology-Philosophy and the modernist unanchored deconstruction to absurdity that Philosophy has become. I sadly look back to my University Philosophy 1 course and how a course on St. Thomas would have been so much more beneficial, and time-resources well spent.
The medical ethics course is another example - 1/3 to 1/2 the course focused on essays and debates for-and-against Abortion when St. Thomas outlines how forcing self to accept sin and insanity policies as acceptable damaged mind-soul faculties, as we all been generations raising babies to adults with insanities as 'normal', mothers hiring Witches and their minions to torture our unborn children to death, silently screaming, on the mothers' whim and profits, sexually mind-body-soul mutilating children, ...
.. What next? Accepting open televised genocide?
The reality of the growing insanity of the West and other regions that Abortion is practiced should be proof and argument enough. Anyone that remembers the solid sanity of the West in the early 1970's and before may realize that 1973 baby-murder policies were that rock kicked that started this avalanche into Hell.
Judges have the power to interpret the law, but not to create the law. The power to create the law is held by the house and senate. Too many judges feel they are all powerful and they create the laws rather than interpret them.
Very true. Judges may only interpret the law, not make it. Today, far too many judges have overreached their authority. They need to be held accountable.
I would add another means of reducing government abuse of the courts: tell the jury they have the right to judge the law and the facts. Empowering juries this way scares the crap out of judges who prefer to be the law givers, and it assumes the jury are conscientious citizens.
Thank you for your comment. Could you explain more about what you mean by "judge the law and the facts"? Perhaps give an example? How does the jury judge the law if the members of the jury are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution and have not recently, if ever, taken a civics class?
Yes. I first encountered this issue as a Marine Corps Judge Advocate. The members (jurors) swear to apply their conscience, the law and the facts. The first time as defense counsel when I reminded them of their duty to apply their conscience, the judge interrupted me and told them, "that is what it says and that is not what you will do."
In a typical civil case in the US, the judge instructs the jury as to what the law says and he tells them they are to follow the law even if they disagree with it.
A strong juror will refuse to cower in a case that he/she thinks is unfair for any number of reasons and vote his/her conscience even if the facts and law the judge gave would point to another outcome.
It is known as jury nullification. It was applied in early American slave holding cases and in some marijuana possession cases.
The OJ Simpson acquittal was likely jury nullification.
The verdict in the first trial of the cops who beat Rodney King was likely jury nullification.
It rests on the jurors' sense of fairness.
Thanks for your explanation. That makes sense. Each juror has the right to consider their own conscience as well as the law and the facts. We know that judges and prosecutors can sometimes distort the law and the facts.
As a young man I wrote a number of letters to the editor in our local papers discussing Jury-Nullification and how this is a real check on laws and courts.
As a result, I have never been called for Jury-Duty while housemates and my wife of 14 years was called twice. As far as I can tell those public letters seem the only rational reason.
Sad, if true. Not that I would want such a duty, but it is service and there is virtue in duty well executed. But consider what that states our Justice System as, rejecting jury-members based on informed states.
Jury of peers? For a good number of defendants, we can assume a jury of average or most likely below average educated & intelligent 'peers' and that is frightening for anyone that struggled with complicated philosophies and options in deciding on Right action that might be illegal but justified as an edge case.
It most certainly explains how the phrase “convicted felon” became a non sequitur during the 2024 election. Virtually no one believes DJT actually committed a crime against anyone
As in Watergate, the real crimes were committed by the prosecutors and the judges.