“Given the fear we are experiencing,...”
Pretty much sums this article up. More hyper-emotional liberals. I believe the very definition of liberalism should be “the inability of one to control his or her emotions.”
“I believe the very definition of liberalism should be “the inability of one to control his or her emotions.””
Or “the desire to control everyone else’s lives.”
The desire to control everyone else’s lives, to a logical individual, is a lack of emotional control. This is seen frequently in the typical “fellow traveler” but not in the leaders of the liberal agenda who are cold hearted “Stalin’s” that would rule with no emotion just raw power. These people are just “predicting” what their rule would be like.
Pretty funny article. The author has no idea what the concept of the rule of law means.
It means you have a set of laws, published in advance, that reasonable people can understand. Then, you have a set of institutions that apply the rules impartially via a process that is procedurally fair--that is, the institutions do not guarantee a just outcome (only God can ensure justice) but they follow procedures (right to lawyer, right to confront witnesses etc) to make sure the adjudication is basically fair. This lets people govern their behavior rationally by knowing the law in advance and adjusting it to the law. It is one of the greatest innovations in human history.
Somehow, the author thinks a law against, say, abortion (really any conservative law) is inconsistent with the rule of law. That is silly. You make it illegal in advance and then enforce it as against aborters who did so after the law was passed in a fair trial. That is the rule of law in operation.
The author should be more concerned about the breakdown in the rule of law in other areas: (1) poorly written laws that people cannot understand; (2) delegation of law writing to administrative agencies who also enforce the laws; (3) appellate judges who don't like bright lines in well written laws and impose "balancing tests" to make them more "fair", thereby rendering them ambiguous; (4) non-judicial administrative tribunals like the Canadian Human Rights Commission or Child Protective Services who improvise the law as they go along or provide summary, ex-parte procedures with drastic consequences in which there is no right to present your case; etc etc etc.
right on! I have an irrational fear that foreign madmen will hijack airliners and crash them into large buildings (sarc)
“that agenda might include no gun control, no abortions, minimal government and similar issues”
These are not agenda items they are constitutional items. The real rule of law.