An Eye for an Eye

This man is Robert Harlan. He kidnapped Rhonda Maloney and proceeded to rape her. She escaped and managed to flag down Jaquie Creazzo, a passing motorist. Mr. Harlan caught up with the two women, shot Ms. Creazzo, leaving her paralyzed, then beat and killed Ms. Maloney. In 1995 he was sentenced to death. Two days ago, the Colorado Supreme Court commuted his sentence to life in prison. Why? Because the jury consulted the Bible.

After Mr. Harlan's conviction, the judge sent the jury off to deliberate about the death penalty with an instruction to think beyond the narrow confines of the law, as required by Colorado law. Each juror, the judge told the panel, must make an "individual moral assessment," in deciding whether Mr. Harlan should live.

Even Mr. Harlans’ lawyer had urged jurors to consider biblical wisdom with a request that they find mercy in their hearts "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham." They instead chose an “eye for an eye”.

This jury chose the Bible as their compass. The Colorado Supreme Court declared that unlawful and compared the Bible to "outside influences that are always to be avoided, like newspaper articles or television programs about the case".

How is it that a handful of judges can ban the Pledge of Allegiance, allow for the starvation of a woman, made legalize slavery, endorse murder, outlaw prayer and declare the Bible illegal?

As CBN puts it, The Constitution starts off “We the People”, not “We the Judges”, yet some would have us believe that judges are the ultimate validation of law.

So what did the framers actually think? The answers are written down in history, in a collection of essays called "The Federalist Papers," where our Founding Fathers explained certain provisions in the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton expressed his belief that the courts would have the least power of the three branches of government when he wrote that, "The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution." And in 1820, Thomas Jefferson agreed with Hamilton on the judiciary's role, warning that "to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed."

Is it any wonder that Democrats are fighting to keep conservatives out of the Judicial Branch? With old media floundering, it is the last true instrument for them to force feed liberalism on the American public.