Ok, so the people elect representatives to the congress so that the congress can represent the people when making the laws and appoint judges to uphold the laws that the legislature created while representing the people. Is this so difficult? Apparently!
Let's start with the courts. There is a court in California that has just banned school children from saying the pledge of allegiance in the morning. The defendants have said they will appeal this decision to a higher court. I'll give you three guesses as to which court this is going to: That's right! The 9th circuit court of appeals! Yes, the court that ruled that gay marriage in California was legal, the court that ruled that farmers couldn't challenge the Endangered Species Act because they had an "economic interest," and the same court that ruled that the use of police dogs to track suspects was considered an "unreasonable search and seizure." In fact, the 9th circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation! This is probably because most members of this court believe that "the bench is a venue to be used to accelerate social change."
The ruling judge said that if the pledge said "one nation who denies that God exists" we'd be up in arms and doing something about it. That is what is happening to atheists. Here's the problem, the constitution says that Congress (Please note: Congress) "shall make no law supporting or restricting any religion." Religion: any belief held that effects ones morals, ethics, and everyday living. Hey! What do you know! Atheism is a religion!
The irony of this situation is that the Supreme Court (of the United States of America) has already ruled in this situation. They ruled that it is not unconstitutional to have the children say the pledge of allegiance. The judge who recently made the decision said that he was forced to rule in the manner he did because a precedent was set by (who else?) the 9th circuit that it was unconstitutional. But that is the exact ruling that the Supreme Court overturned! How does this stuff happen? Now, this ruling will go to the court that has already upheld it and to the Supreme Court that has already overturned it! How many times do we have to do this?! Hey, men and women of the court, you who sit on the bench with the little gavel thingy, in what part of "uphold" do you see "alter?" What part of "protect" means "change" to you? Do you want to make laws? Become a congressperson!
They've got it right, right? Whoops, I guess not! The Congress is elected to represent the people. So if the congress is fighting the people who elected them, doesn't it seem like there is something wrong there? The Massachusetts legislature just voted to deny the voice of the people to be heard regarding homosexual marriage in that state (which was "legalized" by an activist judge (see paragraph above)). The people are asking to vote on it and the politicians who were elected to represent the people are saying "no." The bill (which outlawed gay marriage, but allowed for civil unions) needed 104 votes to get on the ballot in 2006. It failed. If it was done to keep gay marriage legal, they've just done something silly. This bill was put forward by a congressman so it needed 104 votes. There is another proposition being sent to the congress which is a citizen supported bill that outlaws both. Because it must have a certain number of citizen signatures to even get to the congress, it only needs 50 votes to be on the ballot in 2008.
So here's my idea: Judges uphold the law that the legislature creates at the behest of the be people. I know it's radical, but I think it might be more than just my opinion.
4 comments:
From the excerpts I've heard from the hearings, Judge Roberts sounds like he understands the difference between the legislature and the judiciary functions of governance. But what will the left do if they can't force their ideology upon the populous using the courts? They might have to admit their positions publicly and (gulp) argue for them.
I hear ya. But why did he uphold a ruling that has already been overturned by the Supreme Court. Shouldn't the ruling by the higher court be the precedent that he is forced to adhere to?
They were talking about that yesterday on the radio...something about the way the court system is layered, in terms of authority. I don't pretend to understand it. Hey, check out the slate article today on Roberts. I'll quote the juicy bits:
"[I]t's possible to be kind and smart and to believe in the rule of law and also not to get it.
Because the "it" in question has nothing to do with the rule of law. It's about something I might call "law-plus"—the idea that the rule of law, in and of itself, has not always made this country fair. Law-plus rejects Roberts' notion that law, applied neutrally, invariably leads to just results. Law-plus acknowledges that the federal courts have leveled the playing field in this country by broadly interpreting civil rights statutes to allow individual causes of action. Law-plus means federal courts have read the civil rights amendments broadly, in order to level the playing field. Law-plus means accepting a counter-majoritarian role for the courts when the other branches of government cannot or will not protect the weak.
John Roberts isn't a fan of law-plus. In fact, the unbounded nature of judicial power under law-plus is probably what drove him into the boiler room of the Reagan administration in the first place. Time and again he scolds the senators: If you want your statute to provide money damages, write it that way; if you want your legislation to implicate interstate commerce, write it that way. For Roberts, it is not the courts' responsibility to make statutes effective. It is not even the courts' responsibility to make the world fair."
Can the leftist agenda be revealed (by a journalist) any clearer than that?
And here's my article quote:
"Ann Coulter
September 14, 2005
Democrats are so excited about Hurricane Katrina, they're thinking of moving "Camp Casey" to an area outside the National Weather Service. What they haven't figured out yet is how Richard Perle and the "neocons" cooked up a hurricane that targeted only black people. Meanwhile, rescuers in New Orleans have discovered a lower-than-expected 424 dead bodies or, as they're known to liberals, "registered Democratic voters."
In liberals' defense, they've got a better shot at convincing Americans that Bush is responsible for a hurricane than convincing them that John Kerry was fit to be commander in chief. Compared to Kerry, Katrina is a blowhard they can work with.
Liberals think Hurricane Katrina means they get to pick the next Supreme Court justice. And as of today the smart money is on Cindy Sheehan – something about her moral authority being absolute.
It would be a lot of fun to watch liberals going through their "Howard Dean phase" right now, except liberal hysteria always frightens Bush. Instead of poking them through the iron bars of their cages with a stick like a normal person would, Bush soothes them with food pellets and reassuring words. What fun is that?
We're winning! This is no time to concede defeat.
If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.
But liberals have recently taken to pretending judicial activism is – as The New York Times has said repeatedly – voting "to invalidate laws passed by Congress." Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point.
That's why we have a judicial branch, Mr. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times. It's not a make-work program for the black robe industry. It's a third branch of our government. You'll learn more about this concept next year when you're in the seventh grade, Pinch.
If Congress passed a law prohibiting speech criticizing Bush, or banning blacks from owning property, or giving foreigners the right to run for president – all those laws could be properly struck down by the Supreme Court. That's not "judicial activism," it's "judicial."
Invalidating a law that prohibits killing unborn children on the preposterous grounds that the Constitution contains an extra-double-secret right to abortion no one had noticed for 200 years – that's judicial activism. When conservative judges strike down laws, it's because of what's in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it's because of what's in The New York Times.
The left's redefinition of judicial activism to mean something it's not allows liberals to claim they oppose judicial activism and to launch spirited denunciations of conservative judges as the real "judicial activists." This is the Democrats' new approach to winning arguments: Change the definition of words in mid-argument without telling the guy you're arguing with. Chairman Mao would approve.
Thus, The New York Times prissily informed its readers: "There is a misconception that so-called activist judges who 'legislate from the bench' are invariably liberal. In fact, conservative judges can be even more eager to overrule decisions made by elected officials."
That statement has as much intellectual content as saying: "There is a misconception that so-called activist judges who 'legislate from the bench' are invariably liberal. In fact, conservative judges can be even more eager to play tennis."
The very act of redefining "judicial activism" to mean invalidating any law passed by elected officials is precisely the sort of Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense we're talking about. Liberal judges redefine the Constitution's silence on abortion to mean "abortion is a precious constitutional right." Liberal flacks in the media redefine judicial activism to mean "striking down laws."
The Times' definition isn't even coherent. If it were "judicial activism" to strike down laws – any laws, ever – there would be no point to having a Supreme Court. We could just have some idiot functionary, like Joe Wilson, rubber-stamping whatever the other parts of government do.
Liberals can't win on abortion, gay marriage and bans on the Pledge of Allegiance by allowing Americans to vote. That's why they need the courts to keep inventing rights to abortion, gay marriage and bans on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Normal liberals know that, which is why they duck honest argument. But the crazy liberals don't. That's why Bush needs to concentrate on luring them out of their cages. It takes so little to provoke them! Just let us know before Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court so we can arrange for live TV coverage of George Soros' head exploding, OK?"
Post a Comment