Thursday, October 11, 2012

TWO INDIANA GROUPS OPPOSE RETAINING JUSTICE STEVEN H. DAVID

TWO INDIANA GROUPS OPPOSE RETAINING JUSTICE STEVEN H. DAVID


http://themorningafter.us/indiana-just-say-no-to-justice-steven-david/

Justice Steven H, David is up for retention to the Indiana Supreme Court and I am asking you to vote NO for retention of this man.
Here is a sample as to why.
VOTE NO JUSTICE DAVID 2012

Start: Apr 13 2012 4:02 pm
Why MY HOUSE?
One facet of the Indianapolis Tea Party's mission statement is to restore accountable representation.
As many of you know, SB 1 passed on March 20, 2012. SB 1 is legislation to correct the Barnes vs. State. That was the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that erased the Castle Doctrine. The ruling said Hoosiers no longer had the right to defend their home from unlawful entry. Although SB 1 might not be perfect, the legislation is in the right direction in restoring the Castle Doctrine.
So, why continue MY HOUSE since the passage of SB 1?

The main purposes of the MY HOUSE CAMPAIGN is to notify folks that Judge Steven David who wrote the decision that took away our rights is up for retention. Because he was recently appointed by Gov. Daniels, he comes before "We the People" to hire or to let him go. If Hon. David gets the majority votes for retention, he will not be up for retention vote for another 10 years.
There has been a shift on the Indiana Supreme Court bench. When the case was reheard in September, the Supreme Court came to the same ruling. The 2nd time around, however, there was only 1 dissenting judge (in May there were 2 dissenting judges).
In the words of James Madison, "then as the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." Publius (James Madison), Federalist Paper No. 44
In a Republic form of government, VOTING is #1. This is how we the people decide if a representative, judge, etc has been faithful to their Oath....or if we need to find someone else that will be more faithful.
The Indiana Supreme Court made a ruling, 2 times, with the same result ~ Our freedoms being stripped away.
'We the People' can right the wrong ruling by electing a more faithful representative....in this case, by VOTING NO to retain Justice Steven David. Also, something very important to note.....what if we didn't have the legislators that would have righted the wrong ruling? Then, where would be? What if in the future Justice Steven David would make another ruling that goes against 'We the People' and we don't have legislators that step up to the plate and do the right thing? 'We the People' wouldn't have another chance to annul the acts of the usurpers until the next retention vote.
JOIN US AS WE FIGHT FOR ACCOUNTABLE REPRESENTATION!
 
submitted by local Dearborn County tea party members and Pharmacists for Life

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"What if..., What if..." You're suggesting we vote against a man for something he may or may not do in the future?...Ludicrous.

Pharmer said...

Note: Pharmacists for Life INTERNATIONAL has no position on the retention of Judge Steven David.
A single member of that organization, your friendly Pharmer, a tea partier who lives in Indiana, has background information on the issue and her OWN position promulgated on her PERSONAL blog.

Thanks!

David Justice said...

Your reading of Barnes is completely incorrect. That being said - the opinion may have been written by Justice David, but as you said in your own post, there were 2, and then 3, Justices concurred in the opinion. Are you suggesting that we not retain any of the Justices except for Justice Rucker? (Now that would be a pretty bad Court...)

Put your tea up, and get real...

Pharmer said...

Only Rucker and David are up for consideration on Nov 6.

A subsequent request for rehearing of this case to narrow the scope of the decision was denied by all judges except for Rucker.

The suggestion that my reading or Dearborn Co Teapartiers' reading of the Barnes vs State of Indiana decision is incorrect, 'is a gratuitous assertion, which may equally gratuitously be denied'. ;-)
Perhaps explain your apparent support of what Steven David wrote.