title: feds  born to illegals in  year
text: judge warns of dangers of appointed judiciary unelected and unaccountable  rule on their empathetic feelings published  mins ago about   archive bob unruh joined wnd in  after nearly three decades with the associated press as well as several upper midwest newspapers where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists he is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially print 
  a member of the increasingly divided and disputatious alabama supreme court is warning that judges need to be elected and thus accountable to the voters or their decisions end up being based on their empathetic feelings instead of the law 
  alabamas judges are elected and accountable wrote justice tom parker this week federal judges as recently noted by chief justice roberts in his dissent in obergefell v hodges  a case in which five lawyers on the united states supreme court announced a fundamental right to samesex marriage are unaccountable and unelected 
  he pointed out that three of the four dissenting us supreme court justices in obergefell noted on eight different occasions that the five lawyers who decided obergefell were unelected chief justice roberts said on two occasions that those unelected five lawyers were consequently unaccountable 
  parker previously commented that the five lawyers failed to base their decision on legal reasoning history tradition the courts own rules or the rule of law but upon their empathetic feelings 
  obergefell is the product of unelected and unaccountable judges he said 
  he was arguing over a decision by the state court on its next move in a case brought by chief justice roy moore who was suspended for his actions regarding a marriagebased case that the court was reviewing when the obergefell case which created samesex marriage nationwide was announced 
  moore who is challenging the punishment insisted that the state court justices who previously were involved in his case recuse themselves they did with the exception of the acting chief justice who was allowed to work with the governor to pick a panel of retired judges to hear moores arguments 
  parker said active judges should have been included in the panel because retired judges too are unelected and unaccountable 
  unelected and unaccountable judges are empowered to impose their agenda instead of faithfully applying the rule of law parker warned obergefell is not the first case concerning samesex marriage to prove this principle true before the united states supreme court decided obergefell the constitutionality of state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman had been litigated before numerous courts throughout the united states 
  dont miss phyllis schlaflys book now available autographed at the wnd superstore who killed the american family 
  before obergefell  states passed laws affirming traditional marriage in  of those states the traditional marriage laws were challenged in the courts as unconstitutional of the  state laws affirming traditional marriage that were challenged in the courts  of those laws were struck down by the judiciary as unconstitutional each of the  courts that struck down the traditional marriage laws as unconstitutional was composed of judges who were unelected and thus unacountable 
  he explained what happens when activist judges are held to account citing the situation that developed in iowa 
  the supreme court of iowa was one of the unelected courts that struck down iowas traditional marriage law as unconstitutional the judges of the supreme court of iowa are appointed by the governor of iowa however although the judges are initially appointed they must stand for retention elections once their initial term expires 
  he explained that after the iowa legislature adopted onemanonewoman marriage as law in april  in a decision largely viewed as judicial activism the supreme court of iowa unanimously overruled the democratic will of the people of iowa and held the law unconstitutional 
  the very next year three of the judges  who had concurred in varnum had to stand for a retention election all three were removed from office by vote of the people of iowa this was the first time since iowa adopted its retentionelection system that any judge had ever failed to be retained the people of iowa held accountable those judges who failed to uphold the rule of law 
  mathew staver chairman of of liberty counsel which is representing moore said huge questions remain of impropriety regarding the judicial systems handling of moores case 
  chief justice moore is merely asking for the same thing any citizen is entitled to receive  equal justice under the law he wants his case to be heard by an objective and fair panel of judges who will adhere to the rule of law he said 
  the people of alabama have increasingly called upon their judges to be accountable at every turn this case presents new twists and turns that have never occurred in the history of alabama never has there been a requirement that replacement judges all be retired we hope this case moves quickly to a final and just resolution the court of the judiciary violated the law when it suspended chief justice moore for life even though it lacked the  vote never before under the unanimity requirement of coj rule  has any judge ever been suspended for the rest of the term a sexting judge gets six months and a judge who writes a fourpage order that is not unethical or unlawful gets suspended for life this is not right 
  supporters of moore also have filed an ethics complaint against lyn stuart who has been acting as alabamas chief justice 
  she is accused of violating multiple cannons of ethics in her mishandling of the cases surrounding chief justice roy moore 
  the complaint comes from the sanctity of marriage alabama organization 
  if the judicial inquiry commission really cares about ethics fairness and upholding the integrity and impartiality of the alabama judiciary they will no doubt take our complaint seriously as will organizations which filed ethics complaints on chief justice moore said tom ford a spokesman for the group 
  the complaints the group said outline how acting chief justice lyn stuart has repeatedly failed to avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety failed to perform the duties of her office impartially failed to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute and failed to conduct herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary 
  parker was not the first to cite the dangers of the judiciary 
  daniel horowitz  senior editor at conservative review told wnd that the nation is going through a social transformation without representation 
  it is the unelected branches of government that are deciding our most important issues whether its the bureaucrats whether its the courts and as it relates to even religious liberty even property rights immigration our voting rights who gets to vote he said 
  horowitz tackles the topic of social transformation without representation in his book stolen sovereignty how to stop unelected judges from transforming america 
  how did we get here horowitz asked rhetorically and the sad reality is nobody ever voted for this this was all foisted upon the people by unelected judges the legal profession and unelected bureaucrats that is social transformation without representation which as scalia warned is something much worse than even taxation without representation that served as the impetus for our first american revolution 
  samesex marriage was mandated for the nation in  by the bare  majority made up of anthony kennedy ruth ginsburg stephen breyer sonia sotomayor and elena kagan john roberts clarence thomas samuel alito and the late antonin scalia opposed it 
  the majority found in the constitution a right to samesex marriage overturning millennia of established legal precedent regarding marriage as well as the will of tens of millions of voters in dozens of states 
  it elicited remarkably harsh criticism of the five justices in the us supreme court majority 
  for one two of the justices in the majority kagan and ginsburg were asked to recuse themselves from the case because they had openly advocated for samesex marriage apparently violating standards to preserve judicial impartiality without their votes the case would have gone the other way 
  they refused 
  then there was the us supreme courts own opinion just two years earlier in the defense of marriage act case in which the court said states have exclusive power over marriage 
  and there also are those who point out that the constitution doesnt mention marriage but does dictate that everything not mentioned in the document is left to the states and the people 
  as wnd reported  ginsburg who voted in favor of samesex marriage has performed samesex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements justice elena kagan also has performed samesex weddings and promoted gay rights at harvards law school while she was at its helm 
  critics contend the two justice appear to be violating judicial ethics rules that require recusal from a case in which there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest 
  the foundation for moral law asked the justices to excuse themselves from the case but they refused to acknowledge the request the foundation explained that canon a of the code of conduct for united states judges provides a judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court  usc sec a mandates that a justice shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned 
  rabbi jonathan cahn author of the new york times bestseller the harbinger and the inspiration behind the isaiah  judgment movie has criticized the supreme courts assumption that it has the authority to redefine marriage 
  at a prayer event in washington he said the justices of the supreme court took up their seats in a hearing on whether they should strike down the biblical and historic definition of marriage that the event should even take place is a sign this is america of george washingtons warning  a nation at war against its own foundation 
  washington warned the smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself hath ordained 
  justices can you judge the ways of god there is another court and there is another judge where all men and all judges will give account he warned 
  if a nations high court should pass judgment on the almighty should you then be surprised god will pass judgment on the court and that nation we are doing that which israel did on the altars of baal he said 
  see jonathans cahns message at washington man of prayer event at the capitol 
  the united states conference of catholic bishops is calling samesex marriage an intrinsic evil 
  and officials from several counties in tennessee have adopted statements opposing the supreme court 
  wnd also reported when dozens of top legal scholars from the likes of washington  lee boston college kansas state notre dame university of texas villanova vanderbilt hillsdale university of nebraska catholic university and regent university issued a statement encouraging all state and federal officials to treat the supreme courts recent creation of samesex marriage as anticonstitutional and illegitimate 
  it cannot  be taken to have settled the law of the united states said the statement from the american principles project  
  we call on all federal and state officeholders to refuse to accept obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case to recognize the authority of states to define marriage and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions to pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons to open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evidence in obergefell