Two hundred thirty nine years ago, there was a revolution. A collection of English colonies in North America decided to overthrow the tyranny of their far away king and trade it for self rule. In their great struggle, these men waged not one but two revolutions: one for independence from a far off motherland and one for a republican form of government, free from the dictates of nobility and royalty. They replaced rule by king with the concept of rule of law, which was decided upon by the people for the people. As time passed, a Constitution was written that would strengthen the greater unity of the nation, ensure the freedoms of the people, and delineate the powers of the government. The government would be split into three branches, with checks and balances over one another so as to prevent one branch from overtaking the other two. In this manner tyranny was to be avoided.
Relatively early in the history of the United States, the judiciary began establishing itself as the final interpreter of the Constitution. It bolstered itself with decisions such as Marbury v. Madison, which established greater power for the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of Congressional laws. In more recent times, the courts have begun to take it upon themselves to determine what the Constitution says and does not say, even in the face of clear wording. Judges have begun placing liberal social morals on the level of law, reading them into the Constitution as existing implicitly in some cases, while looking abroad to buttress them with foreign laws in others.
The judiciary has set itself in such a position so as to lead one to think that it believes it has become the law in itself. Based simply on personal views rationalized by farfetched leaps of logic involving foreign laws, "implied" but unwritten Constitutional clauses, and past fiats, the courts take it upon themselves to make laws and remove laws based simply on a whim when the opportunity presents itself. The judiciary has done a masterful job of usurping the role of the other two branches of government, ultimately dictating what the other two can and cannot do. They do this while blocking the checks and balances the legislative and executive branches should be able to exercise over judges by declaring such actions as "unconstitutional" or "against the law". And they call this unlawfulness "rule of law"!
It is beyond dispute that judges have moved beyond the exercise of a valid judiciary role in society towards actively imposing their will on this country by fiat, against the will of the people themselves. They have set up situations where the people must obtain supermajorities in order to pass constitutional amendments so that they can offset the will of a small group of judges! When the founders of this country fought their great revolution, and when men gave their blood in the wars thereafter, they did not do so in order to prop up a tyranny of judges, but rather that the people might govern themselves!
Judicial activism is responsible for the great dividing issues of our day. Judicial activism is responsible for the great national divide over issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. The crux of the problem in the Terri Schiavo case, and the main reason little is being done by the federal courts, is that the upper courts are too busy protecting the jurisdiction of the lower courts to take the type to consider new evidence in the case. The case has directly pitted the judiciary against the legislative and executive branches, the judiciary is winning, and the judiciary knows that it will be weakened if it does not stand by the decisions passed by the lower courts.
The strong hand of the judiciary does not benefit conservatism in the long run. As has been noted in many places, activist judges have become the manner in which liberals have chosen to enact their vision of what they believe America should be. When liberals speak of jettisoning the Second Amendment and the Electoral College, they know full well that these will never be done away with through the constitutional amendment process. Liberals are counting on the judiciary to eventually declare them antiquated and unnecessary in our modern world. They want to paint these fundamentals to our Republic as not only outdated but harmful, thus giving the judiciary no choice but to protect us from ourselves. It seems at times as though if nothing is done to curtail these abuses of judicial power soon, we will reach a point where nothing can be done at all.
This country is in dire need of judicial reform. When activist judges feel free to run amok imposing their agendas on the people without facing the censure of the checks and balances built into the system, it seems incumbent upon us as Americans to remind them of their places. If we care about this issue, we should take action to show where we stand: we should take part in the March for Justice II in DC on April 7th, we should write letters to the editor decrying the judicial situation in this country, we should contact our local Congressmen demanding that action of some sort be taken! It is far better to take a stand than to sit around while being stood on!
A three-legged table cannot stand in a stable manner if one of the legs is far longer than the others. It's our responsibility to make sure that the leg does not become too long, lest the table fall.
FANTASTIC!