In light of recent federal court decisions handed down in the past two years, with which of the following do you most agree?

Sponsored by:

If You Enjoy Polls Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul C
2 years ago

It continues to amaze me that people who have no opinion post to these polls! This country has entirely too many “I don’t know” or ” I’m not sure” people. For peet’s sake, understand the issues at hand, or crawl back up on your sofas, grab the remoke, and continue to addle your brains with soap operas. If you don’t have the time to understand and vote intelligently, just go away!

Paul C
2 years ago

It always amazes me that people here who haven’t an opinion vote in these polls. This country has far too many “I don’t know” or I am unsure” citizens. For peet’s sake, how about taking time to understand the issues of the day, or crawl back onto your couches, grab the remote, and continue watching soap operas! You are what’s wrong with America.

David Burkhardt
2 years ago

It’s not ” far too many” but rather a few namely, the 9th Circuit and other cherry picked liberal districts. The President has had some wins recently.

Frederick Weiss
2 years ago

My vote went with the overwhelming majority but would like to add. Can anyone even imagine what the Federal Judiciary would look like today had it not been for The Republican Senate holding up votes and/or Voting Down so many of Barrack HUSINE Obama’s Judiciary Appointments. My God we would never be able to recover.

Jan Buchanan
2 years ago

After being tied to the phone for 3 hours by illiterate foreigners trying to take me fkor my money. I tried every number and person but all I received were reordings and no help. These people were abusive, threatening, and would keep calling. Hours of this. They had alot of my vital info. I was just in Social Security office 2 days earlier and I had my identity compror as a federal employee twice. My credit card also sent word I was compromised.a
Jan Buchanan, Texas

Victoria Cason
2 years ago

Not to follow our constution is unamerican. Against everything our country was built on!

2 years ago

Praise to Brian B; Marie & AMAC. How can the Republic – mindlessly “educated” – survive lawless lawmakers, void of fiduciary duty, and judges void of fidelity?

Kevin Bradshaw
2 years ago

We need to go back to the basics of our constitution. You heard of the KISS theory? Keep It Simple Stupid. If they can’t do that then we’re not using common sense. To much PC is brought into the equation. Someone breaks into your home and they fall and break their leg, they get to sue you.. Not right at all.. They are the criminal. No one I know cares that they broke their leg, they should’ve got led poisoning..

2 years ago

They have us by the hair, all those lawyers. They make our laws, prosecute, defend and judge them. Praise be to Judicial Watch for shining a light on the judiciary and praise be to those who actually pursue justice. From what I can see there are at least two kinds of “justice “: That which the hoi polloi experiences and that which the “connected” experience.

Rozina Mortensen
2 years ago

The appointment of the Supreme Court Justices and all lower Federal courts should not be place “for life”. Supreme court judge Ruth Bader Gingrich is obviously too old to be fully engaged in each case that comes before her. I feel that her “decisions” are based on her “under clerks’ ” personal values. She should have retired at least 10+ years ago. I think 75 would be a good age of retirement.

Jack Thomas
2 years ago

Rozina . . . it’s Ruth Bader “Ginsburg.” (Gingrich is the name of Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House in the 1990s).

2 years ago

Health, not age, should be the determinant on Supreme Court Justices retiring. Unfortunately, Ginsburg has been brain addled by chemotherapy and other drugs for the 10 years mentioned. She obviously lacks the character and judgment to step down since she became incapable of high level critical thinking. Her voice is so low and weak that people have trouble hearing what she is saying on the bench; everyone in the court room has to wait and wait while Ginsburg slowly and laboriously steps down. Why doesn’t she use a wheelchair or some other assistance? (Because she wants to keep up the fiction of her “workouts?” I watched a video of part of her laughable “workout” on the Colbert Show. Ginsburg’s trainer straddled her to lift and support her core with both arms so she could “perform” a Plank. The whole point of a Plank is to strengthen. Ginsburg had to have her mid section held up by someone else, not her own core muscles or muscles in her arms and legs. A baby could do a “Plank” like this. In a hand weight exercise, when Ginsburg lifted hand weights behind her head, guess who actually stood behind her lifting the weights-AND lifting Ginsburg’s arms? Her TRAINER. What a farce.)

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is exactly where we want brilliant men and women with top level knowledge and training who also have the WISDOM of EXPERIENCE- which can only be gained through years lived. Our country has amazing people performing at very high levels in their 80’s and even 90’s. Why would we want to retire these phenomenal people from one of the positions where they are of most benefit to our society?

2 years ago

Plus, recently it was announced that justice ginsberg has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (which according to physicians is hard to treat, and by the time it is detected, the cancer has spread throughout the patient’s body, in many cases. The chemo that she is probably taking probably affects her mental processes, which were anti-constitutional when she went to the Senate for her confirmation hearings. She should have never been confirmed to the Supreme court, and, IMHO, should have been removed from any position she held as an appellate justice.

B. Kelly
2 years ago

I am not at all surprised at the poll results. Much like other polls, the pollee (Yeah I made that up) base is targeted and the poller (Probably is not a real noun either) sends inquiries to that desired base thus obtaining the desired results. Left-wingers have been doing it for decades.
As to the question, I think rbd (poster) nailed it when he said ‘even one judge not following the Constitution is too many’.
Of course, a deep study of our nation’s history will reveal that Catholics and Jews were forbidden positions of power. This further substantiates that our forefathers were – for the most part – Christian in their actions. Somewhere along the way, someone decided that opposing (and sometimes antagonistic) viewpoints were a good thing.
And so the ban was lifted.
Now we have the likes of Allah towel-heads in office, Jews and those Catholics who show up for mass once a year, twice if they are not drunk on Easter. Then again, we did have the “Baptist” Jimmy “the nutty-buddy friend from Plains” Carter who totally destroys my statements above.

2 years ago
Reply to  B. Kelly

all local, state and federal officials, elected or appointed, are required by Article VI of the Constitution to support the Constitution of the US, and the laws and treaties that are in accordance with the Constition, as the Supreme law of the land. If they break that oath, saying that foreign law (like the UN Small Arms Control treaty, and the Law of the Sea treaty, as well as Muslim Shariah law) can be used by federal (and local justices ) in t making their legal decisions–even though those foreign laws were NOT passed by our Congress or any local government or state legislature).

BTW, I believe that Jews and Catholics were banned from office only in a few states-like those in New England, which were settled mainly by those who opposed the Church of England. Pennsylvania and others passed tolerance acts that allowed catholics and jews full or nearly full citizenship rights.

Jack Thomas
2 years ago

Our federal judiciary has a long, checkered history of “tinkering” with constitutional law at the appellate level but more notably at the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of the most critical court decisions that have affected American cultural life for generations — Roe v. Wade, 1973 which legalized abortion; United States v. Windsor, 2013 . . . a landmark civil rights case that paved the way for the later Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, nationalizing same-sex marriage —- were the result of a “swing” vote by one or more “activist” judges in black robes who pay no price for being wrong. It’s “We the People” who pay the price. And to further illustrate this point, take the recent court challenges to President Trump’s immigration policies. In every case, the radical Left opposed a policy or rule change that didn’t fit neatly into its agenda. It exploited the First Amendment, i.e. under the Bill of Rights, allowing the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” in order to obstruct the President’s lawful power to establish U.S. Immigration Policy. The Constitution DOES NOT grant the Judiciary a voice in setting Immigration Policy; that’s strictly within the President’s discretionary authority. So why are these court challenges allowed to go forward? The plaintiffs — for the most part, far-left “pro open borders” advocates — should not have ANY recognized legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the President for exercising his constitutional authority. Period. But this is a result which the framers of our Constitution did not intend and couldn’t forsee. In this regard, the core principles of our Constitution would be virtually “fail-safe” if it were not for the appointment of activist judges legislating from the bench, and permitting litigation that should rightly be disqualified as having no merit. This sorry state of affairs is unlikely to end without consistent appointments of “originalist” judges who interpret the Constitution as written, rather than twisting its provisions to serve political ends.

2 years ago
Reply to  Jack Thomas

Yep, now the LGBT crowd want the Congress to pass the “equality act” which will force businesses. churches, etcetera to hire openly homosexual people and prohibit them from firing those persons for cause. And will require that every one must honor the sexual contract (not marriage) and cater to the homosexual couple, no matter what their ethical or religious views are-a clearly unconstitutional violation of the establishment of religion clause and the free exercise of religion clause of the First amendment.

2 years ago

PC is just wrong! When will we conservative come out of the shadows and speak up and push back of the mob trying to make our great America like a socialist country ?????
I am sadden by what the colleges are teaching our young people……the throwing awayof our historical emblems……of the violence in our neighborhoods!!!
Come on people we have struggled before and we can over come all this mess!!! Dont be afraid to speak up! Pray for great Country!

John Karkalis
2 years ago
Reply to  Sara

Sara’s post hit squarely on a bete noir of mine, the hare brained concept of “political correctness “.
If there is any place where free exchange of ideas ought to be allowed it is surely on the college campus.
Comity in the exchange of differing ideas sadly yields to intolerance or the barring of a speaker.
It is no secret that the majority, by far, of campus speakers hissed or dissed are those delivering a conservative message, those who would remind us of the eternal verities of unchanging tradition.
Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton certainly disagreed,often sharply, on weighty issues. They resolved their differences, not by taking to the streets with torches, pitchforks, or clubs, but by coming together and allowing their differences to breathe.

Our founders would blanch at the spectacle of their descendants kneeling before the altar of P.C.,demanding their 15 minutes of outrage over a perceived slight or opinion not in concert with a particular bias.
The greatest republic does not work this way.

Thanks, Sara, for reminding us to remain on guard against the folly known as “political correctness” .

I’m new to the AMAC fold. I am still feeling my way around the kind of feedback offered.
What I seen are thoughtful, well-written posts.
Sincerely, John Karkalis, Cleveland,OH

Sharon Wyper
2 years ago

“Far too many federal judges seem determined to supplant their own views for those of our elected officials. Judicial activism is on the rise and is worrisome.” I think this sentence was intended to mean the opposite of what it says, so I didn’t vote. Don’t you mean that judges supplant the actual laws as written with their own opinions? If so, then I’d agree.

John G
2 years ago

Unless they are unconstitutional, the laws should be enforced, on the streets and in the courtrooms. Any judge who does not practice that needs to removed. We need legislation to provide for prompt removal from office of any judges that do not practice that! Period!

beverly clark
2 years ago

President Trump has been working little by little to change the makeup of many of the lower courts and district courts. He has been appointing judges who interpret and rule by the constitution as written and not their interpretation.

Charles Slattery
2 years ago

All congressmen and judges should be required to take a course on the making of and the ideas discussed in preparing the Decloration of Indep and the Constitution.. Perhaps many would see it is important to be civil and not stray too far from the primary reasons for starting a new “free people” government. Now where could we find truly impartial instructors?

SD Bordertown
2 years ago

One of the greatest things the President is trying to do is turn the 9th district court of appeals , sadly located in San Francisco. This can be one of his greatest achievements to our judicial sys.
A win for the nation.
Every time a lawsuit is filed by the left they send it to the 9th circuit because they know it is anti-Trump. Go President Trump, 4 more baby.

2 years ago

An example of what sitting home on election day gives us. Liberal Black Robes who make decisions based on their ideology and not our Constitution. A liberal in the White House is much worse since the nine justices make far reaching decisions and seems they also have a tendency to follow their own agenda. Their ruling allowing the Unaffordable Care act to be shoved down our throats is just one example.

2 years ago

Thank goodness President Trump is able to appoint Judges that are not radical anti American never Trumpers! Hopefully RBG on the Supreme Court will decide to retire within the next few years while President Trump in office and able to appoint her replacement. That should be reason alone to vote for Trump in 2020!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x