Replies

I can’t disagree with you. The problem is, though, that we’ve allowed this to go too far. Government power grabs are usually done with the best of announced intentions. The modern era of judicial imperialism began with Brown vs. Board of Education, a morally correct but constitutionally questionable decision. It has become the basis of all subsequent judicial activism. Announce that you want to remove lawless judges or remove a matter from court jurisdiction, and you’ll be met with a smirking allegation that you want to reverse Brown.

The court claimed a moral high ground in Brown, and the liberal media and academic community quickly built a fortress around the judiciary, espousing them as our moral superiors and elevating them to the level of secular deities. When a ridiculous Supreme Court decision is rendered, such as the VMI decision, people gripe about for a few weeks and then fall into line and agree that it’s better for these things to be decided by judges, that way they don’t divide us politically during elections (as if elections are supposed to be non-divisive). People today are simply numbed and dumbed on the role of the judiciary. I had a student worker “explain” to me that it was the responsibility of the Supreme Court to “enact a gay marriage law” if the homophobic people wouldn’t do it.

As judicial activism has expanded, it has created political constituencies for itself. Racial minorities, immigrants, feminists, sexual libertines, secularists, homosexuals....they all rely on the judiciary to “pass laws that otherwise wouldn’t get passed”.

As I said, I can’t disagree with you. But how do we gain control of the court when so many people, and so many politicians, have a vested interest in federal judicial supremacy? When each federal judicial power grab is instantly enshrined by the media and by law schools as “settled” law that is sacrosanct for all eternity? Perhaps the only solution is mass resistance by the states to federal imperialism. That was tried after Brown, and look what happened. The court’s power was enhanced. What would happen if, say, 27 states refused to sanction same-sex “marriage” if ordered to do so by the Supreme Court?

Look at how the people of Massachusetts have been smacked down by their courts and politicians on the same sex “marriage” issue. You can argue that it’s the people’s own fault for electing those clowns in the first place, but people are so dependent on government now, they’ll go right on electing abusive politicians as long as the goodies keep flowing.

It’s a vicious cycle that libertarians don’t understand. The more socially liberal a society becomes, the more dependent it becomes. The more dependent it becomes, the more socialistic it becomes. And the more socialisic it becomes, the less likely the people are to revolt and throw the bums out, because they now depend on those bums for their health care, their rent subsidies, their food stamps.....