Thursday, May 12, 2005

Maybe They Are Sincere

For a while I have been amazed that the Democrats could have the audacity to talk about judicial activism from the right. Did they expect anyone to believe them? And what about the unprecedented use of a filibuster to avoid voting on judicial appointments? How can they talk about how the Republicans are disrupting government and impeding the legislative process. Of course the DNC/MSM Blather on about how ending the judicial filibuster would dismantle government as we know it. Are they nuts, or what?

Then I realized that I was just not seeing it from their perspective. They really do mean what they have been saying. And I finally realized why. It's all very simple, really.

For years the left has been unable to pass their agenda through what most of us think of as the legislative process. That hasn't stopped them, however. What they could not do through the elected bodies, they implemented through the courts. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade discovered a previously hidden "right to privacy", which has now morphed into a "right to abortion" (listen to the rhetoric from the left if you doubt that). Recently that same body struck down laws in 19 states that they felt were "not in accordance to a growing consensus" and "inconsistent with the provisions" of a treaty that the U.S. never ratified. See, I know I am not the brightest bulb in the socket, but I always thought that a "consensus" could be determined by the outcome of an election. I thought elected officials might have some feel for the "consensus" of their contituents. Apparently they voters of those 19 states were not aware of the consensus in Europe on which the decision was based.

There are other examples too numerous to mention, but these will help you get the point.
You see, the left considers the courts as "the legislative process". What cannot pass through votes, they can implement with the judges. Unless, of course, some redneck cowboy appoints judges who will actually read the Constitution and base their decisions on American case law. That would be a disruption of the left's legislative process. And, in fact, would mark a major change in government as they know it.

The left wants the Constitution to grow and "evolve" - a fluid document that means "whatever the judges say it means". They complain that the "conservatives see the Constitution like the Bible and want to interpret it literally" (actual quote from a letter to the editor). Liberal theologians are free to discount the plain text of the Bible in order to find "the spiritual meaning". Liberal judges are free to ignore the plain language of the Constitution to find the "spirit of it" to grow.

Of course, there is at least one major difference between the Constitution and the Bible: the Constitution contains within it a means to change it. That process is called ratification of amendments. We have done that 27 times in our history. It is a difficult process by design - requiring both a super majority of the Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much simpler to change it by judicial fiat.

And here is the crux. Since judicial fiat is the left modus operandum, they presume it would be that of the right as well. They fear Christian conservatives because they might push their own agenda - something the left has done through the courts for years.


Kajun said...

A thief fears for the security of his possessions.

camojack said...

I think you've pretty much nailed it, mon amí...

Aakash said...

Judicial activism is one of the greatest threats to our system (or perhaps I should say: former system) of republican government and constitutional liberty.

The test to Bush will come if and when he has the opportunity to appoint a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Will he do like his father, or will he do like his father? It's hard to say.

We must work and pray for the best.

Hawkeye® said...

So, bottom line... what you are saying is, "It takes one to know one"?

Or, "Warped minds presume everyone else is as warped as they are"?

Anyway.... I agree with everything you said. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Long live Pat'sRick©.

Pat'sRick© said...

camojack and Hawkeye®
Thanks for the support.
Yes, who knew Souter would turn out so bad?

Judicial Activist:
(Left Def) One who interprets laws the way they are written in light of the Constitution.
(Right Def) One who interprets the Constitution in light of foreign thinking and enacts laws from the bench.

Both sides throw the term around. The Left has betrayed itself with the "compromise" to let the Republicans pick and five of the judegs for an up or down vote. Guess they are all qualified then. And the real beef against Judge Owens is that she doesn't think abortions are a good idea for teenagers without parental consent. I had to ask myself: And this is a problem?