Liberals think democracy has a reset button - (liberal judges reverse voters' preferences!)

A few years back, I was watching my son play little league baseball. This is not the little league you and I might remember where a few of the older kids would pitch to you with the coach standing behind them, but our new liberalized "T-Ball" little league where the kids get to stand up at the plate and cut away at a stationary ball ad infinitum until they hit it and get to run to base. On this day the unthinkable happened. A boy hit the ball, and a player actually caught it, turned and made a strong throw to first base, and to all the parents' shock and joy, the first baseman caught the ball long before the batter reached the bag. Now, back in the days when conservative Neanderthals ruled the Earth, this would have been called an "out." But not so today in America's "enlightened" youth athletic programs. No, this was called a "nothing." The boy was returned to the plate so he could have another chance to bat and achieve the "proper" outcome of him getting to run the bases like everyone else. It is not like they keep score or anything, so who cares?

The problem is that liberals do not confine this reset button mentality to just the activities formerly known as youth competitive sports, but freedom and the democratic process in general.

The European Union is in turmoil because the voters of France have refused to ratify the new EU Constitution in a national referendum. Regardless of analysts' claims that the referendum was more a referendum on Jacques Chirac's Presidency, or that the French public failed to understand the "nuances" of the cumbersome 317 page European Union Constitution, it is entirely possible that the French people do not want to be part of a wider European Union. Who knows, could it be that the French enjoy being French and have no desire to be Greater Europeans?

It really might not matter. Even before the referendum, EU rotating President Jean-Claude Juncker, of Luxembourg, stated that France should re-run their referendum in order to achieve the "right answer" if the voters reject it. Too bad Mr. Juncker did not work for the Al Gore Presidential Campaign, we still might be voting. Since when has the democratic process had a "mulligan clause?" This is a national referendum, not a slice off the tee!

With increasing frequency liberals world wide are seeing when key elements of their agenda are put up for the approval of the electorate, they are soundly defeated. However, instead of accepting the will of the people and trying to find new ideas for a new age, liberals are intent on subverting the democratic process by any means possible. In the liberal mind, the only fair election is the one they win.

Currently, 18 states have passed amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as a union between a man and woman through state wide referenda. Even in the case of left leaning Oregon, these initiatives were passed in all the states proposing them by huge double digit margins. Unfortunately for the voting public, liberals do not feel that we selected the "right answer" on the same sex marriage issue, so they are seeking to undermine the will of the people with the cooperation of their judicial activist allies in the Courts. In early May, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down the Nebraska defense of marriage amendment because. well because he did not like it, and effectively voided the votes of 70% of Nebraskans who voted in favor of the amendment in 2000. Yet once again, when liberals do not like the results of the democratic process, they seek to hit the reset button, toss the decision aside and go on as though the vote never occurred.

As in international treaties, domestic policy and little league baseball, liberals love freedom and democracy so long as they get to pick the winners. Liberals seek to use the democratic process as a means to affirm what they believe. When it is rejected, they push reality aside and attempt to go on as though they actually won the support of the people. A democracy is only a democracy when the majority of voters decide how they will live their lives. If you are unable to accept this simple fact, and constantly try to undermine the will of the people anytime it is against your opinions, then I do not know if you are a Communist, Fascist, or Autocrat, but you are certainly not an American.

Justin Darr is a veteran retail manager from the Philadelphia area where he lives with this wife, Erin, twin children Brandon and Brittany, three mice, two cats, and a spoiled dog named Xena. He grew up in rural Western Pennsylvania were he learned the values of hard work, honesty, family, and the downfalls of Liberalism.

Justin is an expert in political philosophy, western world history, and the development of American society. He has worked on various political campaigns at all levels, served as an election official to verify ballot counts, and is a well know "aggressive debater" to all that know him. He is also a fountain of relatively useless knowledge due to years of University study.

It’s been said here many times by the few lawyers on FR and by others who understand that the hyperbole about judges usurping power is just so much clap-trap. Almost without exception the rants on FR describe not what judges’ responsibilities are or what they do but, rather, that the court being savaged decided a case on the relevant facts before it in juxtaposition to the applicable rule of law in with a ruling that displeases the writer of the post. That recurrent demonstration of a lack of understanding persists despite the clear explanation here often that courts have the duty to define vague terms, interpret ambiguous statutory commands and measure the legislation against constitutional criteria.

For example, the GOP controlled Congress passed and President Bush signed the new bankruptcy law. The value or detriment of that new law to the public and policy aside, that’s for another post, it presents another and excellent example of the obligations imposed on courts as the third co-equal and independent branch of government. Among the many confusing provisions of the bankruptcy law is one that allows a debtor who is “sufficiently” below his state’s median income the unchallengeable right to file the bankruptcy petition.

Like with the judicial determination of what, in other instances, is a “reasonable” search, or what constitutes “due process,” or “just compensation,” it is the courts that are given the obligation to interpret what the term “sufficiently” means in both a universal sense as well in any given case before the court. Thus, much to the chagrin of the too often ignorant radio talking heads and the noisy clamor of the uninformed who think courts merely read statutory words and apply them, it should be clear (although it probably will not be accepted) that when a statutory command requires interpretation or is ambiguous, the only agency of government capable of accomplishing that important task is the judiciary.

Once Congress has passed an Act and the President has signed it into law, as the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) said, it becomes the sole duty of the judicial department to declare what the law is. If the law is clear, unambiguous and not open to interpretation and if it is consistent with constitutional standards, then the courts’ have no role except for application. However, as is virtually always the case, the law or agency regulation is issued containing some provision(s) that is capable of question as to its meaning. Even though there will be those fervently wishing a different outcome, the courts’ intervention is a necessary act consistent with democracy’s demand that law be both known and predictable by those affected by it.

Because a state legislative body - -or, for that matter Congress, passes an Act that becomes law, it is unalterably the exclusive obligation of the courts (and hence judges) to determine whether the law comports with the Constitution. Those who complain about the courts is nothing less than a substitute statement for saying that they disagree with the court. The answer is not to pillory the judges, the answer is to enact legislation that meets constitutional muster.

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.