[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: [Idaho Supreme Court] Judge wannabes refuse to endorse constitution Judge wannabes refuse to endorse constitution Questionnaire sought confirmation of support for state law of the land None of the 19 candidates currently seeking appointment to fill a vacancy in the Idaho Supreme Court, was willing to confirm support for a series of statements drawn directly from the state's constitution, according to the Idaho Values Alliance. The pro-family organization sent the candidates for the important judicial post a routine questionnaire asking whether they agreed or disagreed with a list of statements. For example, Question 1 asked whether the candidates would agree with the statement: "The Founders of the state of Idaho were grateful to God for our freedom." Not one candidate would respond to the questionnaire, even though the preamble to the state constitution says: "We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution." Likewise, none of the candidates responded to the following statement: "All men have an inalienable right to enjoy and defend both life and liberty." The state constitution, in Article 1, Section 1, states: "All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty…" The questionnaire was nothing more than requests for affirmation – or disagreement – for the existing state constitution, a document every judge in Idaho swears an oath to uphold upon taking office. "One possibility is that the candidates didn't even recognize that these statements come word-for-word from the state constitution, which is pretty alarming," said Bryan Fischer, the executive director of the alliance. "The second possibility is that they did recognize them as coming from the constitution, but weren't willing to let the public know whether they agreed with it. That's even worse," he said. "The fact that not one candidate was willing to give the public this critical information will make the average observer wonder whether any of them are qualified for a seat on the bench," Fischer said. Significant public issues are pending in the state, and rulings from the state Supreme Court affect the life of every resident, he noted. "Whoever is appointed by the governor to the Supreme Court will take an oath to uphold the state constitution. The citizens have the right to know if candidates for that position know what's in it, and whether they will support it. It's worthless for them to say they will uphold the whole thing if they won't commit to upholding specific parts of it," Fischer said. Those not responding to the questionnaire were: Bart M. Davis, Myron Dan Gabbert Jr., Michael S. Gilmore, Ralph J. Gines, Hon. Joel D. Horton, Larry C. Hunter, Warren E. Jones, Debora K. Kristensen, Lynn M. Luker, Charles F. Peterson Jr., Kevin D. Setterlee, Gardner W. Skinner Jr., Marvin M. Smith, Hon. Kathryn A. Sticklen, Clive J. Strong, Mitchell E. Toryanski, Terrence R. White, Hon. R. Barry Wood and William F. Yost III, the alliance said. Question 4 asked the candidates to agree or disagree with the statement: "All political power is inherent in the people, not the courts." The state constitution specifies: "All political power is inherent in the people." Fischer said the role of judges in the law and umpires in baseball is similar. "The role of a judge, like an umpire, is not to make up the rules or change the rules he doesn't like, but to apply the rules that have been established by others," he said. "The first question league officials would ask a prospective umpire is whether he knows the rules of baseball and will agree to uphold them. If an umpire applicant doesn't know the rules or wouldn't be willing to openly admit he agrees with the 'three strikes and you're out' rule, for example, he wouldn't stand a chance of getting a job. "Why would we award a position on the most powerful judicial body in the state to someone who won't let us know if he even knows the state constitution or agrees with it?" Fischer asked. "When Judge Dan Eismann ran for a seat on the Idaho Supreme Court in 2000, he filled out a much more extensive questionnaire than this one. So these candidates can't hide behind the pretense that judicial rules don't allow them to return a judicial questionnaire. This naturally raises the question, why are these candidates so secretive? Why is this process so insular that the public cannot get any information at all about the judicial philosophy of the candidates?" The document also asked the candidates to agree or disagree with: "The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship should be forever guaranteed." That comes from Article I, Section 4: "The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed…" They also were asked to agree or disagree with: "The people, not just the militia, should have the right to keep and bear arms." And in Article 1, Section 11, the state constitution declares: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged…" Still another request for agreement or disagreement: "The first concern of all good government should be the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home." And from the constitution, Article III, Section 24: "The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home." The Idaho state constitution also recognizes that a marriage shall be only between a man and a woman, but Idaho residents don't know whether the judicial candidates agree with that or not. Are you a representative of the media who would like to interview the author of this story? Let us know.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#5. To: Calamity, *libertarians* (#0)
domestic enemys if any of them get a seat on the bench the people should move to have them impeached immediatly
I totally agree. This act of circumventing the election process through early retirement, reeks of NWO control.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||