House Media Division
Several state GOP lawmakers today called for judicial reform and for the impeachment of seven state Supreme Court justices who made a political ruling to ban a Ten Commandments monument from the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.
The lawmakers include state Reps. Kevin Calvey (R-OKC), Casey Murdock (R-Felt), Lewis Moore (R-Edmond), Dan Fisher (R-Yukon), George Faught (R-Muskogee), Jason Murphey (R-Guthrie), Paul Wesselhoft (R-Moore), Sally Kern (R-OKC), Sean Roberts (R-Hominy), Mark McBride (R-Moore) and David Derby (R-Owasso).
“Our state Supreme Court is playing politics by issuing rulings contrary to the Constitution, and contrary to the will of the clear majority of Oklahoma voters,” Calvey said. “These Supreme Court justices are nothing more than politicians in black robes, masquerading as objective jurists. This ruling is the Court engaging in judicial bullying of the people of Oklahoma, pure and simple. It is time that the people chose jurists, rather than letting a tiny special interest group of lawyers at the Oklahoma Bar Association dictate who can and can’t be a judge.”
Calvey, himself an attorney, said the ruling, like others made by the state Supreme Court, has no basis in law.
“The Ten Commandments have undeniable historical significance as a foundation for U.S. law. The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., itself depicts the Ten Commandments. To ban the Ten Commandments from the seat of our state’s government shows that the court is imposing its own elitist political prejudices on the people.”
Calvey cited other cases as evidence of the court’s liberal elitist bias, most notably Nova Health Systems v. Pruitt, 292 P.3d 28, in which the state Supreme Court struck down Oklahoma’s requirement that a mother seeking an abortion be told of her right to view an ultrasound of her unborn child.
“The state Supreme Court’s ultrasound ruling allows predatory abortionists like Dr. Numeshkumar Patel to coerce and mislead women into having abortions,” Calvey said. “Many such women suffer trauma later when they discover the truth about their baby’s development, that unscrupulous doctors like Patel failed to tell them. The state Supreme Court allows these women to be victimized by unregulated abortionists like Patel.”
Patel faces an upcoming felony trial for fraudulently misleading his patients.
Calvey noted that the state Supreme Court has routinely struck down popular pro-life laws, even those which merely regulate how the abortion procedure is done without inhibiting the ability to obtain an abortion.
Calvey criticized the false application of the term “judicial independence” in support of the state Supreme Court’s actions.
“It is becoming increasingly clear that the term ‘judicial independence’ has become a liberal code phrase for ‘undemocratic liberal dictatorial powers.’ It is sad that the once-worthy concept of ‘judicial independence’ has been perverted by those engaging in politics from the bench,” Calvey said.
The lawmakers indicated they would support Articles of Impeachment against the seven justices next legislative session. They also indicated they supported efforts to reduce the influence of the Oklahoma Bar Association on the selection of jurists.
Please proceed with this initiative – time to push back on this very aggressive court and its besmirching of the people of our state, our nation and our history, not to mention our faith.
So proud of those legislators listed above – Thank you for standing strong and being our voice!! A decision such as this by the Oklahoma Supreme Court is a 180° opposite of what the vast majority of Oklahoman’s would support – I say let the proceedings begin!
First, this decision has nothing to do with any previous abortion cases, so why are these pols muddling the waters concerning this issue?
Second, anyone who says the Ten Commandments has a more historical connotation than any religious significance is either a complete idiot or a perfect hypocrite.
Please demonstrate how the Ten Commandments played a major factor in the definition of our government. Just saying it did doesn’t make it true.
Read our constitution. The clause disallowing the support of any religious position on any public property seems pretty clear. Just what part of ‘shall not’ do they not understand? That term, as used in the Ten Commandments,
should import the same impact with the judges.
I would suggest that impeachment of the two dissenting judges would be more appropriate, considering their distorted view of our constitution. Either that or amend our constitution to allow for a particular religion to be proclaimed as the ‘religion of our state’, and wait for the law suits.
I personally vote for the pols to first fix our roads and bridges before embarking on a religious crusade for something that does not belong in government.
As the article said, this is just another example of the court’s liberal elitist agenda. They’re not interested in safeguarding and upholding the law, they’re only interested in furthering their liberal social agenda, as is evidenced by their rulings on common sense abortion stipulations leading up to this latest attack on our heritage–removing a Ten Commandments display paid for by private funds.
As posted earlier – these legislators need to read (and understand) the Oklahoma Constitution. The separation of powers should stand.
Impeach them? For following the constitution of our state? How difficult is this to interpret?
Article II Section V
Public Money or Property – Use for Sectarian Purposes
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.
I’m not exactly happy about it, but I can read. Change the constitution of our state if you want – but don’t blame the judges!
Why is there no mention of the ACLU? They brought the lawsuit. The justices didn’t just wake up and decide to act, they responded to a lawsuit that was initiated by the ACLU.
http://mccarvillereport.com/archives/15188
The ACLU scored a payoff on this one. The taxpayers will probably be on the hook for $100k+ in legal fees payable to the Oklahoma ACLU. So even though no state or public funds were used for the monument, the taxpayers will foot a bill worse than the cost of the monument.
THAT BEAUTIFUL MONUMENT WAS NOT BUILT WITH PUBLIC FUNDS…it was built with private donations. And if you’ll recall, it was recently RE-built by private funds after some crazed idiot destroyed it. Now it’s not some deranged goof ball, it’s men in black robes playing politics with the law.
Even if you could, by some imaginative, far-fetched, loose legal wrangling concoct a case for calling the Ten Commandments display a “church” or calling the monument itself a “minister”, or calling the area a type of “sectarian institution” (a BIG stretch), the fact that it was purchased with private funds doesn’t go away.
Mr. Fullerton. regardless of who paid for the monument, the fact is that it was erected on state property.
And if you are actually claiming that the Ten Commandments does not represent a religious manifestation, you probably need to spend some more time reading the Old Testament.
Both of those facts confirm that the court was correct in declaring that the placement of the monument is in fact a violation the Oklahoma Constitution.
[…] Check out what they had to say in the following press release issued by bowl cut enthusiast Kevin Calvey. To refresh your memory, he’s the same guy who threatened to set himself on fire to protest the evil inside the Supreme Court: […]
Mr. Woods—where does the law say anything about a monument with religious significance being erected on state property? One paid for by private funds, hmm? Look at the law again…it doesn’t say anything about that. Obviously, the Ten Commandments come from the word of God, so they are of religious origin–nobody is denying that. But there is no particular sect, church, denomination, or particular system of religion that lays exclusive claim to the Ten Commandments, and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the Judeo-Christian code of law does form the historical basis for our state polity.
Last I looked, six states had chapels or prayer rooms or their equivalent at their state capitol. Oklahoma is one of about a dozen states with PrayUSA prayer caucus. How many of our legislators participate in prayer or Bible study right at the capitol? All of these are examples of religious expression—NONE of them are examples of public funds or property being used to support a particular church, minister, denomination, etc. Neither is allowing private citizens to erect a Ten Commandments monument with historic as well as religious significance.