Posted on 04/19/2005 2:47:23 AM PDT by goldstategop
In their frenzied attempts to preserve government by judges, liberals are resorting to a familiar tactic -- accusing conservatives of inciting violence. It’s a ploy worthy of the hysterics and intellectual frauds who populate the American Left.
When they can’t win a debate (can they ever?), leftists deploy what the late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called "the argument from intimidation." Instead of trying to refute the other side, they label their opponents' position evil, attribute sinister motives to its adherents, and charge that its proponents are encouraging violence.
Thus, the Left stridently maintains that proponents of immigration reform are inciting violence against illegal aliens. Opponents of racial quotas are "creating a climate of contempt" where hate crimes are more common. Right-to-lifers are to blame for attacks on abortionists. The majority of the American people who are unwilling to allow a runaway judiciary to impose same-sex marriage on the nation were responsible for the death of Matthew Shepard and every other act of violence against gays (including those committed by other homosexuals).
In 1995, William Jefferson Clinton (never one to shy away from an absurdity) suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was in part the product of conservative talk show hosts complaining about high taxes and excessive regulation -- thereby promoting disdain for Washington.
Not surprisingly, the Left applies its incitement standard selectively. Army Sgt. Hassan Akbar is now on trial for murder. Prosecutors charge that in March, 2003, Akbar used grenades and a gun to kill Army Capt. Christopher Seifert and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, and wound 14 others at an encampment in Kuwait. In his journal, Akbar said he had to act to keep Americans from harming his fellow Muslims in Iraq. Was Akbar egged on by the antiwar movement? There was a protest early in the war where demonstrators carried a banner calling on GIs to "frag" their officers. Did Akbar act on that homicidal rhetoric?
When Bill Maher said the 9/11 killers were brave, and Americans who dropped bombs form 20,000 feet were cowards, did that encourage al-Qaeda to keep being courageous?
I don’t recall one Democratic Congressman decrying any of these ravings. But a group of them now are up in arms over conservative criticism of judicial activism and efforts to rein-in a runaway judiciary?
The war over judges is getting white hot. Instead of debating the issue on the merits, leftist politicians, editorialists, and activists are crying wolf.
On April 14, Democratic Senators Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Debbie Stabenow released a letter demanding that the president, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist "denounce" a conference the week before which discussed withdrawal of jurisdiction (under Article III of the Constitution), impeachment and other last-ditch efforts to prevent the judiciary from destroying representative government.
According to Schumer, et. al., conservatives at the conference "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," which I helped to organize, made "inflammatory comments" which "openly threatened sitting judges." Such verbal outrages are "unacceptable," "dangerous," a threat to judicial independence and "might encourage violence against judges," the New York Senator squeaked.
Recently, there have been two well-publicized cases of violence directed at judges. In one, a man who was mentally disturbed killed the husband and mother of Federal Judge Joan Lefkow, who dismissed his malpractice suit. In the other, Brian Nichols – a former college football player on trial for raping his ex-girl-friend -- wrested a gun away from a 5’2’’ female deputy who was guarding him and shot and killed Atlanta Judge Rowland Barnes, a court stenographer and another deputy.
I doubt that either of the killers followed the judicial reform debate – or could even spell judicial reform.
If excoriating judges and condemning judicial decisions is inflammatory – then some celebrated Americans stand guilty of the same.
Speaking of Federalist judges, in 1823, Jefferson charged: "At the establishment of our Constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous…" Our third president also spoke of judicial "despotism" and said judges had become "an oligarchy."
Abraham Lincoln savaged Chief Justice Roger Taney for his decision in the Dred Scott case (holding that a black man was not a person, and thus could never claim the rights of citizenship). Following Lincoln’s lead, the Republican press of the 1860s was equally blunt. In May, 1861, the New York Tribune said the Chief Justice, "takes sides with traitors," and that Taney would "go through history as the judge who dragged his official robes in the pollutions of treason." The Chicago Tribune called the Supreme Court "the last entrenchment behind which despotism is sheltered." While the National Independent said the Court was "regarded as a diseased member of the body politic," and ran the risk of "amputation."
In a 1937 radio address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (upset with the Supreme Court’s treatment of his New Deal) declared, "We must save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself." Was FDR inciting violence against sitting judges?
Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia recently said of the Court’s juvenile death sentence case, "So, it is literally true…that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people." Is Scalia urging violence against his fellow justices in the majority here?
It’s only in the minds of modern leftists that criticism of the courts has become tantamount to sacrilege and reform proposals are treated as calls for armed insurrection (something else the Left usually supports).
Speaking of violence, what about the violence judges are doing to the Constitution, democracy and the rule of law? Democrats solemnly intone that we must preserve an independent judiciary. Too many judges are operating independently -- of both the Constitution and reality.
We speak of judges "legislating from the bench." Actually, almost every time it sits, the Supreme Court amends the Constitution from the bench.
On March 18, the Court struck down the laws of 18 states, enacted by elected legislatures, allowing for the execution of minors. By a one-vote majority, the Court determined that the execution of a juvenile killer is cruel and unusual punishment. Among the other beneficiaries of this bizarre ruling is John Lee Malvo, the Beltway sniper, who killed 10 innocents.
The decision was in complete disregard of the Constitution’s clear and manifest meaning, and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Incredibly, Justice Anthony Kennedy (a prime candidate for impeachment) said that in "interpreting" the Constitution, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the death penalty."
Does anyone who hasn’t been honored at an ABA annual dinner really believe that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they intended public opinion in Sweden and France to be a factor in understanding their words?
Pity Kennedy doesn’t believe in weighing the overwhelming weight of American opinion in reaching his decisions. According to a March CNN/USA Today, Gallup poll, by a 3-to-1 margin, the people of this country favor public display of the Ten Commandments. It’s unlikely that this will even enter into the deliberations of the Supreme Court when it decides a pair of Ten Commandments cases later this year.
The urge to usurp the legislative function isn’t confined to the Supreme Court. On March 14, Richard Kramer, a Superior Court Judge in San Francisco, threw out California’s marriage law limiting the matrimonial state to a man and a woman. In so doing, he nullified the will of 61.4 percent of the state’s voters, who passed the Prop-22 ban on same-sex marriage by referendum in 2000. Voters in 11 states followed suit last year.
Kramer’s excuse, "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite sex partners." That’s a constitutional argument -- I don’t think there’s any valid reason for an enactment of the voters, so I’ll overturn it?
All too often, judicial reasoning comes down to the justice’s or judge’s whims, prejudices, ideology or personal philosophy of life and the universe. The Constitution becomes mere window dressing for forcing their values on a cringing public.
The classic example of this is Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s shifting position in the two Supreme Court cases dealing with state anti-sodomy laws. In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, O’Connor sided with the majority in holding that there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a state from making homosexual sex a crime. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, she again sided with the majority – this time, determining that the Constitution most certainly did preclude anti-sodomy statutes. What was it about the Constitution that O’Connor did not understand in 1986 that she suddenly comprehended in 2003? It wasn’t the Constitution that changed in those 17 years, or even O’Connor’s understanding of the Constitution. What changed were O’Connor’s social views, which she then read into the Constitution.
That’s how Constitutional law is unmade by activist judges.
That the Left is desperate to preserve and protect its judicial con game is understandable. It regularly loses at the ballot box (including 7 of the last 10 presidential elections). Opinion polls show the public adamantly against it – especially on social issues.
Appeals to the bench are the last refuge of left-wing elitists. What the electorate won’t give them, what legislatures would never dare to give them, judicial activists regularly hand them all wrapped up with a silver bow.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been particularly successful in litigating for social upheaval. Other avid litigators include People for the American Way, American United for Separation of Church and State, the National Abortion Rights Action League/Pro-Choice America, the National Organization for Women, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The way the ACLU got the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court to declare "one nation under God" (Lincoln’s words, by the way) in the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of the First Amendment’s mythical wall of separation is a case in point. No legislature, no governor, no officeholder in the land would have taken this radical, anti-historical position. It could only come from the twisted thinking of federal judges.
That’s why the Left invests so much time and energy in propping up the myth that the voice of the judge is the voice of God. They live in dread of the public catching a glimpse of the little man behind the curtain, frantically pulling the levers to create the illusion of omniscience.
That’s why it’s willing – once again – to resort to smear tactics and a campaign of intimidation to avoid a long overdue debate.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
It's crackers to slip a dropsy with a rozer in snide (Hey, anyone can write nonsensically.)
Sadly, I see the GOP leadership already giving up, and going "weak in the knees."
They stood firm (mostly) during the court ordered execution by starvation of Terry Shiavo. But now they GOP is believing faux "polls" that show they must be "punished" for their crime of criticizing out of control judges.
They are allowing the media to savage and rape the reputation of Tom DeLay because he dared insinuate that the judiciary be held accountable.
The GOP is in charge of 2 branches of Government, and they act like they are the janitor.
Well, it certainly led them to think Americans are weenies, which at the very least didn't discourage them.
BTW, killing yourself to take out those you see as your enemies is indeed an act of courage, although in this case it was an act of courageous evil. Wickedness is not always cowardly. It would be much easier to defeat if it were.
Those who dropped the bombs were not cowards. Those who insisted they use this tactic out of fear of American casualties, despite its increased risk of death or injury to innocents, were indeed cowards, afraid of political kickback rather than personal injury or death.
It’s only in the minds of modern leftists that criticism of the courts has become tantamount to sacrilege and reform proposals are treated as calls for armed insurrection (something else the Left usually supports).
Perfect! On the money! One of my lefty acquaintances really thinks that the nation NEEDS a judicial oligarchy.
And now the left is trying to suggest that to diss the Supremes or any court is to make a kind of treasonous utterance. As far as I'm concerned that's a conclusive argument that we are now laboring under a judicial tyranny..
When the left wants to prohibit political speech to protect judges we know that George III has risen again and comes among us wearing black robes.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
AMEN -The GOP never got over being the follower.They do not
know how to lead--and the Dems (who have controlled the political dialogue since World War Twice) do not know how be
a minority.Unless we the people rise up and demand the platform of Republican campaigns and the lockstep ram it down their throats conformity of the ACLU led Democrapic Party we can only expect more of the same from the beltway.
bump
It is only in liberals minds that whatever they say or do can, somehow, be justified, much as they have been doing for 40 years.
The Fondas/Kerrys/VVAW/Ramsey Clarks, et. al., have NEVER been held accountable for their treasonous conduct (and to this day, continue with their revisionist posture that what they said and did, helped shorten the war) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Former Soviet Agents have admitted this; KGB documents have proved it; and even with regards to Vietnam, several former high-ranking members within their gov't have disclosed how anti-war activities helped them win (well not really win, but force our "bug out") the war.
None other than former Col. Bui Tin admitted same:
(EXCERPTS)
QUOTE WITHOUT COMMENT
a vietnam postscript
In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory.
"Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable.
Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor."
http://www.redcatcher.org/Quote.htm
I wrote on another post re: someone who suggesting that the fall of South Vietnam (and the North's "conquest) was due to the fact that their military did not/would not/could not, fight to preserve their freedom, thus, "too bad!"
In addition, though we had made a "commitment" to the South Vietnamese, that [IF] the North did NOT abide by the treaty, or attacked the South, the US "WOULD" come to their assistance. NOT
1. Congress (with a Demonrat majority) cut aid to South Vietnam; and,
2. That "weasel" and gutless Ford, refused to order the bombing renewed, as he was authorized to do if the North broke the accords--which they did; and,
3. Without aid, the South (regardless of their military's fighting capacity or will to defend themselves, which was PROVEN, to be formidable, as evidenced of their survival for 2 years after we "bugged out")was eventually overran and as Beretta was fond of saying: "That's the end of that tune!"
Sadly politics trumped integrity; expediency prevailed over resolve; honor and commitment, gave way to coercion and weakness; and this turned out to be one of the greatest travesty’s and disgrace, this country has experienced in memory.
A proud Vietnam Vet who is ashamed of what his country did, which led to the imprisonment, torture and murder of hundreds of thousand of South Vietnamese, whose only crime was that they "believed" and "trusted" us.
It was in 1975, that I tore up (symbolically) my "R" card, and have been and Independent, ever since.
O'Connor is a perfect example of why putting "constructionist" judges, or "originalist" judges, or just plain Republican judges, on the Court will do nothing to eliminate judicial activism.
People change their minds over time, and given the power to alter society without accountability is a heady brew for anyone not applying for sainthood.
A constitutional amendment to limit the terms of appointed federal judges would limit their damage, but that would require a Congress with some spine.
Impeachments look good on paper, but in reality they don't work for the Supremes.
The only thing that may work is Nullification. At some point the Supremes will make a ruling so obnoxious to the American people that state courts "may" refuse to recognize it as constitutional. But, then, the killing of 40+ million unborn children is already obnoxious law created by our Black Robes, so what it will take to move the people is right now unknown.
Your remarks bear repeating:
"The GOP is in charge of 2 branches of Government, and they act like they are the janitor."
"already giving up"
You've been reading the NYT - because I'm not getting that impression at all. DeLay has already reported that several pieces of legislation are in progress.
And .. Rove's comments yesterday are hardly milk toast, along with (of all people) Trent Lott.
So while the media is saying they have 2 prominent repubs who asked DeLay to resign - people don't even know who those people are - but they know who Lott and Rove are - and they have both said DeLay has never been charged with anything.
I agree that even going to great lengths to pick good judges is no guarantee against judicial activism. Who knows if there is a Souter lurking in the bunch, but even more so, as you say it is impossible to predict if a judge will 'grow' (i.e. become socially liberal) once safely in office. Following from that, there is no reason to expect a good decision made today to not be overturned tomorrow, as we've seen this Court do with state sodomy and capital punishment laws.
I would prefer that it not be state courts that stand up and say no to SCOTUS, however, and instead would like to see their supposedly coequal branches, Congress and the Executive, do it. (I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd want state governors and legislatures to cross the Rubicon too and defy SCOTUS, but if it were the case that some Southern or Mtn West state were to do it alone then the media would devestate them.) Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked once that "Justice Marshall has made his decision, not let him enforce it." That is the line that our allegedly conservative President and allegedly conservative Congress should take. They should publically slam a particularly egregious SCOTUS decision as being w/o Constitutional justification, and that they as equal defenders and enforcers of the Constitution will not enforce it, thereby rendering it void.
Now I don't expect this to actually happen, as the Executive and Legislative branches have no stomach to try and beat the Courts back to their intended role, and infact are probably happy to have the judges take hot button issues out of their hand so they can throw up their hands and plead powerlessness to their constituents. But, if it were to happen, it would have to happen with an at least-nominally conservative President backed up by a conservative Congress.
For that reason I really hope that SCOTUS does what it inevitably will with regards to marriage, and impose gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation before the next election. Then at least we'd have Bush in office and most likely have a Republican congress to back him up. If the GOP played it right they could win over the public by simply pointing out how as few as 5 people have with the stroke of a pen wiped out every state law, many of which were implemented by an overwhelming direct vote of the people.
Of course, what Bush and Congress would likely do is try and pass an Amendment to overturn the Court, but this would be dangerous for two reasons; (1) It lends further credence to the idea that its proper for the Courts to have this type of power, power far in excess of anything the Founders ever intended, and that the arduous Amendment process is the ONLY way to stop them. (2) Unfortunately because the idea of judicial supremacy has sadly become imprinted on many, a SCOTUS decision takes on a sort of weight and momentum of its own. Therefore, the longer it stands the harder it will be to pass an Amendment because the decision will unfortuantely convince many Americans to accept it because, well, the Imperial Court says so. We'd have to assume that a cowed President, Congress, and state govts would bend over and take it and dutifully obey the decision while the Amendment process gets going. This will allow the media to run countless stories with the theme of "the sky isn't falling afterall" or "its really no different", etc, and profile one 'gay marriage' after another in the effort to push public opinion to the Left.
Of course I could be wrong, and such an arrogant decision might be the straw that breaks the camels back as it ignites a fury within the public that won't be quenched by time, or the gravitas of the Supreme Court, or the media. If this were to happen, then it would be the perfect time to lauch a campaign against judicial supremacy and, if necessary, take us to a Constitutional crisis/showdown because it would be easier to win over the public with this huge, in-your-face, example of abuse of power by the courts. Combining it with other examples of crazy decisions like the banning of public nativity scenes, and disallowing of the most mainstream and popular restrictions on abortion would help.
This is another reason I hope it happens before 2008's 'GOP candidate vs Hillary' is because it could make the matter an even bigger issue than it was last year, thus hurting Hillary, especially if she adopts the typical leftist refrain of 'the courts have spoken, its now a matter of settled law, time to move one...'
This is the type of info the GOP and its allies must be prepared to use in ads and media talking points when combatting the Left/Dems in their effort to put the Courts on such a pedastal that its 'unAmerican' to even dare challenge them.
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.