In the Missouri Legislature it would take a minimum of 82 members of the House agreeing with 18 or more Senators, who together could successfully navigate the parliamentary procedures of the Missouri General Assembly to advance liberal social policies, such as homosexual marriage, in our state.  (A majority of both bodies.)

 

In the state court system only one out of 322 judges is needed to do the same thing.  An activist court decision would have to go through at least one, or more, Appellate

Judges whose decision either way would then go to the State Supreme Court.  The pivotal question hinges on who sits on these courts?  What would 4 out of 7 members

of the high court do?  Since its establishment in 1820, Missouri’s Supreme Court had been both politically and socially conservative – until now!  For over 180 years our

state has maintained a judicially restrained court – up until just four years ago! 

 

With the appointment of Judge Richard B. Teitelman to the Supreme Court by Governor Bob Holden (his second appointee) the court swung to a liberal domination

for the first time in Missouri’s history.  Twelve years of liberal antics from the Carnahan & Holden administrations has changed Missouri for generations to come!

 

The responsibility of voting for Missouri judges is more compelling than ever! 

---

As far as your Circuit Judges are concerned:

 

You will have to research them for your own area. 

There are 45 Circuit Districts with hundreds of judges.
 
MFN recommends you call local law enforcement - sheriff deputies, prosecutor(s), and any trustworthy attorneys

(lawyers from your area churches who have a reputation of maintaining a consistent Biblical worldview).

 

Ask these people who interact with the circuit judges about their experiences and knowledge.

- Ask about how a judge either helps or hinders law enforcement?
- Are they willing to get up in the middle of the night to sign search warrants, or do they give the sheriff grief over being troubled?
- Do they help in the fight against meth or are they part of the problem?
- Do they treat people differently depending on which side of town they come from?
- Do they tend to protect certain popular family names, or otherwise treat them with kit gloves?
 
Law enforcement will not openly campaign for or against the judges they are going to be standing in front of. 

But after going through these kinds of questions you will be able to discern any significant problems or outstanding

traits that will help guide you and your friends in voting in an intelligent manner that is pleasing to the Lord.

 

---

 

"JUDICIAL ACTIVISM"

 

An "activist" judge is one who makes political decisions - not legal judgments.

When a Judge steps outside the parameters of the laws he is to maintain, he assumes the role of a legislator making law rather than a judge

who determines if or how a law has been violated.  Legislators debate and deliberate as a body of several elected representatives charged with

making the law.  Judges are only supposed to enforce those laws and no more.  Thus, any judge who, for any reason, ignores a law he

disagrees with or abuses his authority by imposing the power of his position to enforce legal frameworks that do not otherwise exist in

duly adopted laws and ordinances, is acting outside the "rule-of-law" - he is an "activist", not a judge.

 

 

"JUDICIAL RESTRAINT"

 

A "restrained" judge is one who discerns legal judgments from within the "rule-of-law".

Whenever a judge restrains himself from acting on his own personal preferences and applies only the "rule-of-law" in discerning legal judgments,

he allows those properly elected to legislate the parameters of the law.  Public policy remains within the domain of those public bodies open to

public discourse and influence.  The role of a Judge is not to make law but to enforce those laws properly deliberated before various bodies

of duly elected representatives charged with the role of lawmakers.  These Judges set aside their personal preferences in order to enforce

the "rule-of-law".  Such restraint qualifies one as a trustworthy Judge.

 

 

Judicial Discernment

 

Voters are asked to elect or retain judges in every election cycle.  These are elections, complete with all the high rhetoric surrounding every other

political contest.  Some have tried to redefine inappropriate judicial activism as mere disgruntlement with a particular judge of the judicial system. 

Falsely claiming that 'activism' is a "straw man" that doesn't truly exist in Missouri courts, this "spin" turns the table on the critics. 

Anyone who raises questions about judges who step out of their bounds of authority is accused of being the bad guy. 

The goal of this "spin" is to make the critic look like a fool who is unwilling to accept the authority of the court only because they are unhappy

with the outcome of a case.  (Equally erroneous are charges of activism from folks who really are just unhappy with the outcome of a court case(s).)

 

Citizens must be cautious to understand the parameters of the various laws related to cases they are concerned about.  A conservative Judge who engages

in activism is just as wrong as a liberal who would do the same thing.  The performance of a Judge is not to be evaluated by the popularity of the outcomes

of a given court.  Whether you like and support - or dislike and oppose - the outcome of a court ruling has nothing to do with declaring a Judge to be a

liberal "activist", or a "restrained" conservative.  Discerning a Judge's "judicial activism" or "judicial restraint" depends on his adhering to the "rule-of-law",

or if he is taking the law into his own hand to remold it with political decisions according to his personal preference.