Judge Choicextra

Announcement has just (and I repeat: "just") been made by Supreme Court Judge David Souter that he is retiring in June 2009. Perhaps Ginsburg will announce retirement thereafter.

Barack holds the fate of the High Court in his hands. God help him. Literally!

We will see if Barack is smart enough to choose a capable male for Souter's replacement, rather than a confusion and harassment-causing woman (to fulfil some non-qualifications feminist quota)....and screw the contrariness of the subversively-sexist Huffington Post chauvenists.

As another citizen of the United States, a Supreme Court judicial nominee is subject to the same constitutional parameters every other citizen is, although how he interprets such is a matter of individual choice and variation.

For example, the First Amendment contains the clause that Congress shall not respect establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Not only Congress, but those under the authority of Congress (including every government agent and bureacrat, plus every civilian citizen) shall neither establish all religions (especially antisemitic ones), nor prohibit the free exercise of all religions (particularly anti-antisemitic ones).

The Eighteenth Amendment prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages was repealed, as should the Nineteenth Amendment stating that voting should not be denied on the basis of "sex" (which I guess should have instead read: gender).

Liquor is still not sold on Sundays here in Minnesota, even though the 18th Amendment was repealed. And if the 19th Amendment was repealed, women still could vote (although they would not be specifically encouraged to do so, by the repealing of that 19th Amendment), nor get in any position of authority over nor equal with men (e.g. political, media, law enforcement, legislative, ecclesiastical, judicial, etc.).

But WHAT religion (and obviously: religious denomination) and the sundry practices of associated dogma and theology against or for and within an interdependent society of freedom and liberty should not be established, and which religion should not be prohibited? Ah, there is where individual choice and interpretation comes into play, not merely for civilians but also for executive and legislative and judicial government agents.

For the Christian judicial candidate, Islam and Hinduism, Jesus-rejecting judaism, and even cultic catholicism and cultic protestantism should never be established, while genuine and authentic Christianity (and specifically: Scriptural Christianity pertaining to the Sacred-66-books KJV/RSV/etc. Holy Bible) should never be prohibited....any day of the week, including Sundays.

But how and more precisely: for what causes a Supreme Court or Appeals Court or lower-court judge decides a case is subject to all sorts of qualifications and possibilities. Most often, individual court cases involving a particular person having done a particular set of things is complicated to adjudicate, along with how the representative prosecuting and defense attorneys present the case, plus the adjustable and alterable mood and whims of a jury.

Thus, a case involving feminist sexist vs. patriarchal authority or homosexuality inclusion vs heterosexuality only or abortion homicide or carry-and-conceal handguns or heretical evolutionary mythology vs. scientific young-earth creationism might also involve any combination of the previously-stated subjects plus or minus rape or murder or slander or lying and deception as additional factors, and the prosecuting or defense attorneys might not present their cases well in terms of court technicalities and procedures - thus influencing the outcome.

The Supreme Court judge has a choice to take on a case, or send it back to a lower court as is, or send it back to an appellate court with specific instructions for retrial, etc.

The choices are myriad and complex. But the overall performance of a Supreme Court, federal judge, district court judge, or any other judge over time indicates his views on the hot-issue social subjects so many special-interest groups are so concerned, activist, and adament about.

Therefore, it behooves not simply the Judiciary Committee, both houses of Congress, and the President....but also the media and those constituting the Lord's church nationwide to discern with Biblical discrimination for the good of all, whether the evil like the good or not, while the good have no objection to the good and quite easily tolerate it.

That brings us to the subject of public opinion in judicial decisions, not simply a judge adjudicating what he knows to be correct and right morally.

Public opinion can even be decisive pertaining to the desires of the accused. Madoff declared himself guilty without a trial. Others have demanded the death penalty for themselves, for whatever motivations.

The ultimate example is Jesus Himself. The Lord informed His disciples about His life and future crucifixion fate:

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father."

Christ's restraining words of:

Matt 26:53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

were concordant with what He said to Pontius Pilate:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world."

Pilate knew that those words were not in vain, perhaps because of the previous well-publicized reports of the Lord having given sight to blind men by mere verbal declaration, speaking people to life, and more....the same mighty Prophet who could have spoken seeing men to blindness and living men to death:

Gen 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.

2Kings 6:17 Then Elisha prayed, and said, "O LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes that he may see." So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
2Kings 6:18 And when the Syrians came down against him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, and said, "Strike this people, I pray thee, with blindness." So he struck them with blindness in accordance with the prayer of Elisha.
2Kings 6:19 And Elisha said to them, "This is not the way, and this is not the city; follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek." And he led them to Samaria.
2Kings 6:20 As soon as they entered Samaria, Elisha said, "O LORD, open the eyes of these men, that they may see." So the LORD opened their eyes, and they saw; and lo, they were in the midst of Samaria.
2Kings 6:21 When the king of Israel saw them he said to Elisha, "My father, shall I slay them? Shall I slay them?"

Acts 13:11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.

1Kings 17:22 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
1Kings 17:23 And Elijah took the child, and brought him down from the upper chamber into the house, and delivered him to his mother; and Elijah said, "See, your son lives."
1Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Elijah, "Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth."

2Kings 4:32 When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.
2Kings 4:33 So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the LORD.
2Kings 4:34 Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm.
2Kings 4:35 Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
2Kings 4:36 Then he summoned Gehazi and said, "Call this Shunammite." So he called her. And when she came to him, he said, "Take up your son."
2Kings 4:37 She came and fell at his feet, bowing to the ground; then she took up her son and went out.

Acts 5:9 But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."
Acts 5:10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

Maybe Pilate knew of the historical accounts of God executing armies on behalf of Israel:

Isa 37:36 And the angel of the LORD went forth, and slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.
Heb 11:29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as if on dry land; but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.

So Pontius was in quite a predicament. Jealous disbelieving [jewish] scribes and pharisees (who themselves had hypocritically taught the miraculous Divine execution stories of the Old Testament) wanted Jesus dead, and Jesus Himself wanted to become the Sacrificial Lamb destined for atonement by crucifixion:

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Keep in mind that it was not that Jesus was suicidal, because He knew that He would be resurrected shortly after His crucifixion:

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

And atonement could not be made without crucifixion, simply by speaking forgiveness of sins to people without it:

Matt 9:2 And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven."
Mt 9:5 For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?
Mr 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."
Mr 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your pallet and walk'?
Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you."
Lu 5:23 Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?
Lu 7:48 And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

Saint Peter wanted kingdom without crucifixion, but Jesus called that demonic, prohibited Peter from promoting that:

Mt 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you."
23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."

Mr 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men."

and militarily effecting it:

Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
John 18:11 Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"

[ NOTE: Take that first verse with a grain of salt. Neither Joshua nor David, expert in sword thrusting, never got a sword thrust through them. Moreover, Christ was not anti-gun but rather would have been an advocate for Second Amendment rights for the law-abiding:

Luke 22:35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
36 (paraphase) He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. [Don't try to walk into Walmart on faith without a wallet, run your car on faith without gasoline or oil, and both of us probably get the point by now].
37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in Me, 'And He was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about Me has its fulfilment."
38 And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

No stockpiling of assault weapons needed. And remember that Luke 22:36 with the caliber memory aid: Luke .22 caliber and 30.06 caliber. ]

Pilate had no choice but to reluctantly comply, realizing full well he was allowing a pseudo-"legal" lethal lynching:

Luke 23:22 A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him."
Matt 27:24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."
Matt 27:25 And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"

And so it was, not only in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, but during the 1940s when the nazis holocausted similarly-Christ-rejecting jews. And who knows the part Pilate played in revenge at the time of the 70 A.D. massacre for being forced to adjudicate what he knew right well what was terribly and horribly injust. It was said that:

Luke 23:12 And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.

From then on, they both were united not in racist antisemitism, but in mutual determination to exterminate those jews of "the synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) who had caused so much needless and divisive trouble against Caesar (and later on, against Hitler).

In conclusion, when a judge adjudicates nowadays, the demonic public-opinion will of the immoral majority "on the broad and easy road to destruction" (Matt 7:13)....whether they be Jesus-and-Paul-and-Christians-accusing jews, feminist sexist, homogay perverts, evolution-mythology heretics, or baby-murdering abortionists....sometimes prevails, in fulfilment of:

Prov 21:7 The violence of the wicked will sweep them away, because they refuse to do what is just.
Isa 7:16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
Jer 3:3 Therefore the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come; yet you have a harlot's brow, you refuse to be ashamed.
Jer 8:5 Why then has this people turned away in perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return.
Jer 9:6 Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, says the LORD.
Jer 13:10 This evil people, who refuse to hear my words, who stubbornly follow their own heart and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them, shall be like this waistcloth, which is good for nothing.
Ezek 2:5 And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that there has been a prophet among them.
Eze 2:7 And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear; for they are a rebellious house.
Eze 3:27 But when I speak with you, I will open your mouth, and you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD'; he that will hear, let him hear; and he that will refuse to hear, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.
Mic 2:6 "Do not preach" --thus they preach--"one should not preach of such things; disgrace will not overtake us.
John 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
2Tim 3:13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
2Tim 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
2Tim 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

The truth could occasionally come from the quirky aberration of a weaker-sex inferior-gender woman preacher such as Deborah (contrary to Isaiah 3:12, I Corinthians 14:33-38 and I Timothy 2:12-14) as it could come from a mopheaded guy who laid with a harlot (contrary to I Corinthians 6:9-10), such as Judah or Samson. When it came to a noisy woman bothering people, however, the Lord's initial response was (and should have been):

Matt 15:22 And hey, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon."
23 (paraphrase) But He did not answer her a word. [Deafness or focusing was not His problem?] And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us."
24 (paraphrasing) He answered [her? them?], "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25 (paraphrasing) But she came and knelt [with arrogant sexist chauvenism?] before Him , saying, "Lord, help me."
26 And He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
27 (paraphrasing) She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the [feminist-sexist?] dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

So much for [supposed] gender and racial equality:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Obvious, there IS distinction between a man and a woman, despite unisex lavatories and same-gender pseudo-"marriages" of homogays. Try as a strange man to barge into an occupied woman's toilet stall inside a ladies restroom and see what the cops do to you. Any of you guys in the mood to wear panties, nylons, or bra? How about skullcaps for the gentiles? Want to tell your employer that you are the free boss instead of the employee slave, and watch what happens? Admittedly, women are not subhuman like animals without souls. And even though you and I are not in charge over some things, we are in charge over others. Added to that, men cannot birth babies.

As for good and decent judges and educators, who happen to get elected despite the diabolical shenanigans of the Devil and his cohorts, who interpret for public schools and businesses the First Amendment of the Constitution as: "government shall not establish false and cultic anti-Christian religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of genuine-Christian KJV/RSV-Bible religion:"

Titus 1:9 .....hold firm to the sure word as taught.....to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

Some atheists have declared that civil government should not at all be involved with nor interface with ANY religious private group or person (of any and all denominations); that government agents should completely exclude themselves from association (with or against) anything of a religious nature, and thus in effect should quaranteen themselves away from and against such.

If THAT were the case, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution would obviously have to be repealed, as was the 18th Amendment (which also be the case with the 19th Amendment).

In other words, the phrase "Congress shall not respect establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion" would have to be struck and by default the whole Amendment completely repealed, because it - by its very precise wording - involves interface and association with religion of whatever types and denominations. And the Constitution is a document that stands by itself, apart from any personal compliance with or against it by any Founding Father or anyone else.

It would take a massive effort by two-thirds of all State legislatures in accord with the highest Executive and Judicial branches of government to abrogate the First Amendment.

Not only within America, but all throughout human history, government agents have never completely disassociated themselves away from religious (to put it mildly), nor religious activists completely disassociated themselves away from government and government agents. For example, the Old Testament is full of stories of kings of foreign countries deliberately or accidently and consciously getting very involved with those of the Hebrew religion, and the New Testament records the inferface Jesus and His disciples had with such government agents as Herod, Pilate, Roman centurions, Roman soldiers, Caesar, etc.

Practically speaking, disassociating government from religion, thus causing and having the effect of making government agents not only ignorant of the motivations of millions upon millions of citizens and agents who are already religious and want to stay that way, but it would be outright dangerous against the government, in that both beneficial and detrimental planning and activities of the myriad religious citizens nationally is seamlessly interwoven with their religion pertaining to the semantics of their expressed intentions plus understandability of their verbal and written speech and physical-action behavior by their government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (as Lincoln stated).

For government agents to not comprehend the speech and linguistic actions of the people they have traditionally already represented and would like to continue to represent and govern would result not merely in confusion and chaos, but anarchy and internal self-destruction of and against both government agents and the people anti-religious government agents have disasterously disassociated themselves away from.

In the process of selecting candidates for and then appointing men to the judiciary, it is useful to contemplate on what grounds the potential judge has based, bases, and probably will base his judicial decisions upon.

Apart from true or deceived perceptions, beliefs, imaginations, or superstitions of his own mind (be they concocted and contrived foolishness, or instead impeccably-brilliant wisdom), the nominee for being assigned judge will take in consideration:

1. previous case-law judicial decisions of other court judges
2. the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights
3. other sources deemed either good or bad by whoever is deeming them
4. popular majority opinion

A judge's personal feelings will be made manifest not only by his immediate decisions in situations of possible duress but later-on court or other actions of reaffirmation or retaliation.

For example, in the Biblical record, we see that Pontius Pilate was coerced into relinquishing to the synagogue-of-Satan mob demanding crucifixion against the Master Jew [Jesus], concerning which decision Christ declared that those who delivered Himself over to Pilate as excuse and means to crucify Him "had the greater sin." For that decision, Pilate is repeatedly cited for singular responsibility each Sunday in certain church creeds. However, it is not known even by some historians of Roman history how much of a part and in what ways Pilate might not have conspired in revenge but instead righteously worked against jews who had forced his hand against his and his wife's better judgment - in view of Jerusalem and riot-minded jews therein being destroyed by Roman legions around 70 A.D. We do know that a Roman emporer eventually institutionalized Christianity into the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, popular opinion is a significant factor presently and for the future in determining not only on-the-spot legal decisions for the support or demise of individuals or groups who expressed their opinions in words and actions.

Previous case-law judicial decisions of other judges based upon either intelligent and shrewd lawyers (or those of the other type) is another basis for presently-made court decisions. Not only the factor of popular opinions previously mentioned is involved here, but what particular phenomena were put forth in a particular high-court case (like Roe v. Wade) resulting in a general-principle decision for all future rulings of lower courts, plus how smart or dumb the legal-protocol manuevering was by both prosecuting and defense attorneys in court, convincing or not convincing judge and jury. Whether "right" or "wrong" the issues (depending upon how one defines those terms) is not so much the basis for final court decisions as are the techniques, technicalities, and tactics of semantical and logical manipulations of court officials during trial and deliberation.

The United States Constitution is another basis a past, present, and future judge within America will use in making his judicial decisions. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is much room regarding that statement for a variety of judicial views and options in defining and applying terms differently. For instance, what constitutes "religion," and what constitutes "establishing" or "prohibiting" religion? What are popularly-acceptable religions and what is majority-tolerated "religious" "expression" in terms of "free exercise?" Clearly, there is implied differentiation between what is religious and what is non-religious, contrasting the sacred and secular, and hence we have come to hear of the separation of church and state. "Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God" has obvious ramifications, both negatively and positively.

That leads us into other sources a potential judge will use to influence his legal decisions. Here the media comes into play, as for example: internet webmasters. Both printed-communication (newspaper and magazine) plus electronic-communication (radio and TV) newscasters, reporters, and commentators not merely select only certain events to publicize, but then color them with their own favorable or disfavorable wording and analyses - strongly influencing public opinion both short-term and in the long run. And, of course, any truly-impartial judge deserving the 'honorary' title will not exclude the best of the King James Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and other inspired renditions of The HOLY BIBLE when deciding exactly what is "right" or "wrong" and what or what not will be of greatest benefit to the majority of law-abiding citizens.

In doing so, the judicial candidate correctly acknowledges that mere human cognizance is of limited usefulness in seeking and achieving authentic welfare for (or against) he must eventually judge, and pertaining to himself as himself one to be judged: "The Judge" (Acts 10:42, II Timothy 4:1,8, Hebrews 12:23) "is standing at the door" (James 5:9) and "with Him there is no partiality" (Romans 2:5-6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25).