No Superheroes Here: Incredible Courts

In the Oscar-winning film The Incredibles, the bad guys finally find a way to defeat the superheroes—not with exotic weapons or incredible powers, but with lawyers, judges, and compliant government officials.

After Mister Incredible saves a man falling from a building, he is sued for interfering with the man’s right to successfully commit suicide. The plaintiff’s success triggers a explosion of similar lawsuits against superheroes across the country.

Eventually, the government has to step in to stop the chaos emanating from the courts: In exchange for an end to the litigation, the superheroes will put their costumes in storage and enter a kind of witness-protection program. But since the bad guys are still around, all judges and courts accomplish is to endanger their communities.

If this sounds familiar, it should—except that we don’t have superheroes to save us from the problems created by our courts.

The threat posed by judicially created chaos is the subject of a book with a suitably comic book-sounding title Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America.

In it, Mark Levin, a former Justice Department official, describes what he calls a “de facto judicial tyranny.” For Levin, “tyranny,” though it sounds excessive, is precisely what you call it when “justices seize authority” from the federal, state, and local governments under the rubric of judicial review. How else would you characterize justices vetoing “legislative acts based on personal policy preferences”?

In Levin’s estimation, “the judiciary, operating outside its scope, is the greatest threat to representative government we face today.” That’s the point Chuck Colson, along with Robert George, Robert Bork, and others made in the “End of Democracy Symposium” nine years ago.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. Nine years ago, addressing the “judicial usurpation of politics,” it was abortion and other life issues that drove our concerns. In the past nine years, the Court has dismissed and attacked traditional moral attitudes as irrational “animus” (meaning “hatred”) and in the process created a constitutional right to sodomy. Absent some extraordinary measures on the part of citizens, a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” will surely follow from this current Supreme Court.

Levin has some ideas about what those “extraordinary measures” should be. He favors a constitutional amendment that would “term limit” justices. As he told National Review, if justices are “going to behave like politicians, legislating at will, they should not serve for life.”

He also favors empowering Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote, the same amount needed to override a presidential veto. This, he says, would help restore the checks and balances the framers intended for our system of government.

Levin’s ideas are interesting, but deserve debate. Unfortunately, while many members of Congress love to denounce the Court’s excesses, they aren’t as ready to actually do anything beyond talk. And since we can’t count on superheroes for rescue, it’s up to us. We need to let our representatives know how we feel about this “de facto tyranny” and that we expect them to do something besides just talk. The first step is to change the Senate filibuster rules that are being used to keep right-thinking judges off the bench.

There is an "institutionalized legal system' in every state-effectively a union of lawyers ("Officers of the Court") and judges..in which, more times than not, the "law" has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of a local civil case---but where the cases are decided by horse trading in Chambers.

Lawyers routinely sell out their clients best interest, succumbing to peer pressure and judicial pressure; i.e. a lawyer does not want to garner the reputation of being a maverick who steadfastly fights for right, justice and law, because, if so, s/he loses his/her standing in the union.

The end result, is that lawyer is going to have a tough time earning a living, where the judges and other attorneys are going to make it extremely unlikely that the maverick attorney ever wins a case. It's predominantly politics.

At this point, I think I speak the obvious....but for those who haven't been aware of this institutionalized legal system, they are becoming more aware now...resulting in the frustration of some victims of injustice that leads them to wrongfully engage violence.

The most telling aspect of this principle is where the Judiciary, even the Conservative 11th Circuit, united in lockstep when one of their brethren was challenged by Congress (Greer)- even where it was evident that Greer made clearly erroneous decisions AND even where the Legislature and Executive Branches ordered, by constitutional means via a Law, that the District Court perform a de novo review.

I saw in a piece of proposed legislation, that one element, was the establishment of an ombudsman, to whom those victimized by judicial tyranny could bring their grievances. This solution is a step in the right direction

However, the Office of the ombudsman would have to be "real".
In Ct, we have a grievance procedure for those misrepresented by their attorneys. Of course, it's a straw man. The ultimate arbiter of the grievance is a panel of lawyers designated by the Bar Association. So much for that.

In Ct, a maverick lawyer, a woman, sued 3 judges for corruption and collusion. Very brave, indeed. Not only did she lose the case, she was disbarred for 5 years- a disbarment upheld by the Ct. Supreme Court.

In Ct., we have a statute against Unfair Trade Practices conducted by businesses, professionals and commercial enterprises. You guessed it- the Ct Supreme Court ruled that it did not apply to attorneys.

This ombudsman, or a citizen's review committee, would be an effective solution to the tyranny of local judges and attorneys who see themselves as the "law"- the trick will be to get in past a Legislature consisting, in good measure, of attorneys.

I do have a problem with the government intruding into our private sexual lives. I don't want the government telling me what sexual acts between me and my partner are acceptable and what aren't and with whom I can do the nasty with and whom I can't. It wasn't that long ago when interracial marriages were opposed and even today, it's still frowned upon my many.

Furthermore, the word "sodomy" needs to be clarified. What exactly is it? Anal intercourse? Homosexuality? Beastiality? Rape? Leather and latex? Whips and chains? What?

One of my closest friends is gay and has been ever since I've known him (since 1985). He's repeatedly tried to go straight. He's always depressed because he just turned forty and is re-evaluating his life. He hates being gay but can't stop. Should the government inflict further oppression on the poor guy just because he prefers the same gender?

Fantasy is a HUGE part of human sexuality. So is experimentation. My attitude is as long as both partners want to engage in a particular act they find sexually stimulating and it doesn't harm others (be it human or animal); who are we to tell them they can't do it?

The church and the government has no place in our bedrooms.

The old axiom, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it" is a good rule to go by.

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.