Posted on 03/08/2005 12:25:25 AM PST by The Great Yazoo
It is painfully ironic that we should be promoting the spread of democracy abroad when democracy is shrinking at home. Over the years, the outcomes of our elections have meant less and less, as judges have taken more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials.
Judges have imposed their own notions on everything from school administration to gay marriage, and have ordered both state and federal agencies to spend billions of dollars to carry out policies favored by the judges or have even ordered a state legislature to raise taxes. This naked exercise of judicial power has been covered by the fig leaf of pretense to be "interpreting" laws and the Constitution by stretching and twisting words beyond recognition. The merits of the particular policies or expenditures is not the issue. The real issue is much bigger: Are the people to have the right to elect their own representatives to decide issues or are unelected judges to take over an ever-increasing share of the power to rule? This has happened gradually but steadily. Just as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to our growing acceptance of immoral behavior as "defining deviancy downward," so we have come to accept the steady erosion of democratic government as judges have defined democracy downward. While people in various countries in the Middle East are beginning to stir as they see democracy start to take root in Iraq, our own political system is moving steadily in the opposite direction, toward rule by unelected judicial ayatollahs, acting like the ayatollahs in Iran. That is what makes the impending Senate battle over judicial nominees something much bigger than a current political squabble or a clash of Senatorial egos. One way to stop the continuing erosion of the American people's right to govern themselves would be to appoint judges who follow the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' doctrine that his job was to see that the game is played by the rules, "whether I like them or not." Judges with that philosophy are anathema to liberal Democrats in the Senate today. They know that the only way many liberal policies can become law is by having them imposed by judges, because voters have increasingly rejected such policies and the candidates who espouse them. The Senate's Constitutional right and duty to "advise and consent" on the President's judicial nominees is being denied by a minority of Democratic Senators who refuse to let these nominees be voted on. Since Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they have the power to change Senate rules, so that a minority of Senators can no longer prevent the full Senate from voting on judicial nominees. Such a rule change is referred to as "the nuclear option," since it would be a major change that could provoke major retaliation by the Democrats, both in obstructing current legislation and in the future using that same rule to ride roughshod over Republicans whenever the Democrats gain control of the Senate. An aging Supreme Court means that there is now a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop the erosion of democratic self-government by putting advocates of judicial restraint, rather than judicial activism, on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats understand how high the stakes are. But do the Republicans? President Bush clearly does but Republican Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the larger Constitutional issues. He is siding with the Democrats in the name of compromise. Senator William Frist, the Republican majority leader, says he has the votes to change Senate rules to prevent a minority from denying the full Senate the right to vote on judicial nominees. Senator Frist also had the votes to prevent Senator Specter from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee but he didn't do it. He chose to avoid a fight. That is not a hopeful sign for what to expect when high noon comes on the President's judicial nominees.
This is why our Framers gave us a Republic, if we could keep it. They knew that democracy was a poor system, where the majority could vote themselves largesse from the public purse.
I'd support only property owners having the vote, or rather, anyone on public assistance of any type could NOT vote.
I'll tell you this much: I won't live under socialism, and neither will a goodly number of other American patriots. To this end I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor.
It would also be according to the procedure as I learned it in Civics class many long times ago.
Maybe Arlyn Specter will save us
One way to stop the continuing erosion of the American people's right to govern themselves would be to appoint judges who follow the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' doctrine that his job was to see that the game is played by the rules, "whether I like them or not."
Great idea. Bork was a real stickler for playing by the rules and we saw what that got him.
>>Why elect Republicans if they are so spineless?<<
When I look at the past 25 years and see how our country has changed for the worse I can't help but ask,"If this were attempted by the person I married, would I have divorced them?"
You bet I would have, long ago! Re-electing any one of these people will only further their apparent goals of crushing America.
We need the common sense of Bob and Betty from the hardware store up the street in our Congress as soon as possible.
But--but --but-they Do write Law disguised as interpretation
and the Congress--and the Executive hold fast to the myth
that if they do not blindly support the Court there will
result some tsunami of lawlessness and disrespect for the
Rule of Law that the nation will be broken apart. DO agree with Levin in much of his book--but find he ought to have included Rhenquist in his rogues gallery of supreme
Court Judges who overstayed their abilities.IMO Kennedy has
appeared to be the defacto leader in the Court for years.
I could be wrong.
Think Clinton in '92, when with 41% (iirc) of a 44% voter turnout ( do the math; that turned out to 19 million voters - out of 105 million eligible/260 million total population/ but only 47 million voting that decided the election of BJ), we conservatives suffered setbacks that still carry huge foreign policy and national security implications for this Country.
Am not saying I have a quick and easy solution, cuz I don't - this is frustrating, and often times I muse along the irrational "if I were in the Senate, I'd" - ... and you can insert all sorts physical acts of whoopass upon not just the dhimmis, but on some of these so-called GOP senators.
It is far past time that the majority acted the part... and a fear I have is that since they obviously won't grab the bull by the horns on this, they will be voted out on principle - and we're back to square one with the dhimmis running the show again.
Amen FRiend.
When we won our independence, a popular rallying cry was "No more Kings!"
What we have now in this Nation is a nominally "elected" professional politician class, that is mostly devoted to remaining in office, and will do whatever it takes (even to the detriment of their constituents) to keep their personal power. The power of incumbency is awesome, and politicians use this power to full effect. The longer a person is in office, the more power they attain; this is called "seniority" and voters are hesitant to throw out a "senior" politician because that constituency will lose the "pork" that the pol can provide. We need the BEST people to run for office; and the system is such now that the "best" people are unwilling to put up with the bullsqueeze necessary to become elected. This is a National disgrace.
So... how do we fix this?
Term limits is one answer, and so is a law that prohibits an elected official from introducing a bill to benefit his/her own district as well as an anti-quid pro quo provision that keeps one pol from "porking" for another and vise versa. A law that prohibits lawyers from elected office would also help a great deal. Lawyers are "officers of the Court" or de facto members of the Judiciary - that they also number as the vast majority of elected officials is a clear violation of the seperation of powers, and may explain why Congress is unwilling to reign in an out-of-control Court system. A line-item veto (and a President with the balls and the integrity to use it) would also help a great deal. A Constitutional Amendment that forbids an elected official any benefit not provided to the national population would also reduce the abuse of power.
The best way, perhaps, to fix these issues is to return to the truely Constitutional method of electing our representatives, and to force the Courts to behave in a Constitutional manner. Unfortunately, this will require a Second American Revolution. (which I see as inevitable in any case). The last two election have indicated that this Nation is divided 50/50 between socialists and freedom-loving patriots. A house divided against itself cannot long stand.
How else do you "fix" a system that is so corrupt and disfunctional as ours is?
bttt - excellent statement
think "Perot" in 1992 - and think what that got the Country
I'm not terribly worried about another Klintoon-type president. This nation will disolve in civil war before the patriots allow that disgrace to happen again.
So... how do we fix this?
Refuse to re-elect anyone who has been in office for two terms. Encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same.
There seems to be something about these power hungry monsters that doesn't allow them to go back to civilian life. Maybe the retirement benefits or undeserved respect is what they become addicted to, I don't know.
I don't think we need people to make careers out of politiking. The benefits of short term officials would certainly be a much more balanced level of power through out the legislative halls.
Another benefit would be a much more open system of goverance.
Did you see Perot on the CNN Larry King broadcast just before the election?
I recognized something as being very strange when an executive such as Perot became nervous, shaky and at a loss for words when being interviewed by a newscaster.
It just didn't fit the picture of the man whom I'd seen many times before on TV, the confident, smooth, well spoken big businessman.
I later heard that he and his family had been threatened (through the rumor factory)but it could have been explained why his appearance literally collapsed that evening.
The irony is now that it is an Elite minority who, by virtue of their proximity to our 'Leaders' in terms of financing and Lobbying, who are, in effect, voting themselves largess. That's why, in many cases, there is little difference between Dems and Reps on spending or other seeming Socialist initiatives.
A real mess and one which IMO will require significant upheaval to rectify.
The USSC is just to INTERPRET the law - not WRITE IT!
That's why what they write are called opinions
"Unchecked democracy like in Europe seems to be a one way ticket to socialism."
Well, the Constitution establishes a Republic, not a "democracy". The great wisdom of the Constitution (as originally promulgated) was to assure, by means of super-majority voting in multiple venues (Congress AND state legislatures) that support for changes in governance was both broad and deep. The further we have gotten away from this concept and moved toward "democracy", the worse things have gotten.
I'd support only property owners having the vote, or rather, anyone on public assistance of any type could NOT vote.
What you'd end up with then is people subdiving say desert properties into 1 foot sections which then people would 'own' in order to vote
LOL - Seriously.
The same with me. The problem is we seem to be locked in a room with two women and our choices are limited to ONLY these two. One woman, our wife, who, through time, has become repulsive beyond redemption. The other woman, our only possible substitute, is a 'Rank Skank' possessing all of the repellent qualities we find in our hideous spouse and then some.
A lose-lose proposition and the only real issue is, which choice results in the least loss. It's called being on the horns of a dilemma and that's where I see a lot of Conservatives at this point in time.
Unfortunately, their opinions authorize the lower federal judges to issue orders consistent with their opinions. Federal marshals use the force of law (and sometimes, physicial force) to enforce those orders. The courts now have the functionaries to enforce their edicts.
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.