Posted on 06/02/2010 2:16:50 AM PDT by 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 Souters 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernyouth.org ...
Fake quote. His actual words were, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Will we roll over when Scotus, by 5-4 finds National Socialist Healthcare to be Constitutional?
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.
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.
Desires? Read fairly? Choice?
How about abiding by the Constitution for a change? This is absolutely sickening!
More Bush legacy
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.