Judges are to rule on law, not their views

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman complains in his ruling on Nov. 14 that the state's "Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act" would violate the First Amendment. He conveniently truncates the phrase to suit his own personal perspective that government "shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion."

Without completing the phrase, as so many proponents of separation of church and state do, the First Amendment appears to support his reasoning of freedom from religion. Importantly, the phrase continues with "…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The founding fathers clearly intended our country to have freedom of religion, not from religion.

This type of judicial ruling clearly supports Fred Thompson's contention that the judicial branch of our government is overreaching and is now in the habit of legislating from the bench. If Judge Gettleman is incapable of including these crucial final six words in that phrase then he shouldn't be our representative interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

What can we do about judges like this? We should support presidential candidates like Fred Thompson who will "appoint strict constructionist judges who will interpret law, not impose their views on us by legislating from the bench."

Dave Deetjen

Naperville