David Souter at Harvard: Wrong on the Constitution

Youth for Western Civilization ^ | Wednesday, 02 June 2010 | John Anderson

[ConservativeJen]

David Souter, although retired from the U.S. Supreme Court, is still espousing liberal ideas which contradict the Constitution and the intentions of our founding fathers, as he did in the commencement address he recently gave at Harvard.

"We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice."

Of these, contrary to Souter’s claims, only ‘liberty’ is an actual ‘constitutional good.’ ‘Security and order’ are not, and in fact Benjamin Franklin said “any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Souter moves on to discuss the famous Brown v Board of Education case in which the Supreme Court reversed prior precedent to mandate racially integrated schools. Although today widely celebrated based on a superficial interpretation of its results; resolving this issue through judicial activism, rather than allowing the constitutional democratic process to take its course has resulted in justification of ‘judicial activism’ to achieve social change in a wide range of other areas.

Dr. Michael Uhlmann has written an excellent review of the lack of a constitutional basis for Brown v Board of Education, and how it was used as a jumping off point for the Supreme Court to bypass the Constitution and democratic process in many other areas.

[ConservativeJen]

Souter is still out promoting liberalism, but at least he's off the court. Not that Sotomayor is any better. Full article at link which also contains a link to Dr. Uhlmann's article, which while old is still very relevant and excellent

[Renderofveils]

Equality, or at least the concept of it, is the most dangerous of vices. At its heart is jealousy. Just as you'll never be able to rid the world of jealousy, you'll never be able to have equality. Something will always be different, whether it's the ability to think, or the ability to create things that no one else can. The inherent problem with equality is enforcing it, particularly on an ideological level. Most pols seeking equality have a horrible track record of inflicting pain, suffering, and death in the pursuit of noble equality.

[Mojave]

"...in fact Benjamin Franklin said “any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Fake quote. His actual words were, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Jacquerie]

If our courts do not respect the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, why should anyone respect their decisions?

Will we roll over when Scotus, by 5-4 finds National Socialist Healthcare to be Constitutional?

[Jacquerie]

Aristotle:

“The citizens begin by giving up some part of the constitution, and so with greater ease the government changes something else which is a little more important, until they have undermined the whole fabric of the state.”

At least we have history on our side.

[central_va]

We now live in a color coded anti-white male feminized society that has been rubber stamped by the Supreme Disappointment. A Constitution not followed is worse than no Constitution at all. This state of affairs breeds contempt for the government in the intelligent, and a sentimental belief in the phony protections it was supposed to have in the weak minded. As such, the Constitution now provides a fig leaf for the naked aggression of the socialist statist agenda.

[Just Lori]

The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice."

Desires? Read fairly? Choice?

How about abiding by the Constitution for a change? This is absolutely sickening!

[Theodore R.]

More Bush legacy

[nathanbedford]

"We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice."

But, Justice Souter, you forgot to add that we want protection of property and the advancement of capitalism. So that when striving for equality interfere with the enjoyment of property or when it interferes with profit, equality should be put aside, right?

No? Why not? You mean you put some values with which you interpret the Constitution higher than others? Well then, there is no Constitution, is there?