Judicial Arrogance Prevails

7/25/03 | Russell Shaw

[cpforlife.org]

“The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.” C. S. Lewis

1973 United States Supreme Court

Note that the only two who voted against the majority in Roe v Wade (against MURDERING babies) are on the right side of the photo. Rehnquist standing and White seated. Now isn’t that interesting….Hmmmm………

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[LiteKeeper]

INTSUM

[lodwick]

bttt

[gcruse]

Yet what else but arrogance can you call it when six unelected
 justices presume to tell us that moral intuitions central to Western
 culture and law for centuries no longer count?

Here, let another set of justices help you out with that.

The Georgia Supreme Court noted:

The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.

[Eala]

General agreement. But this seemed out of place:

when six unelected justices

Sorry, but election is not a cure-all for all ailments. If it were, we'd have a pure democracy ("The People..." "lured by the loudest throat" -- Kipling).

[Eala]

"If the people of the United States don't want same-sex marriage imposed on them by their arrogant courts ... it will require amending the Constitution."

Somehow, given a judiciary prone to see "rights" in the "shadows and penumbras" of the Constitution (and such peculiar rights too -- a right of privacy that protects abortion but not governmental and corporate collection and dissemination of personal information, for example), and which seems not to see even those rights explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights... somehow amending the Constitution seems like a totally inadequate, futile measure.

[nickcarraway]

Charge: Father, Daughter Married (Is it Okay With Sandra Day O'Connor?)

[moneyrunner]

”The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong.”

So far, most people would nod their heads except that this statement is either meaningless or buncombe on high red wheels. Exercising my liberty could mean free speech or it could mean killing you for dissing me. I would certainly be much freer if I could simply shoot the next SOB who cuts me off, without fear of retaliation by the “jack booted thugs” right? So it matters very much whether a majority believes my right to do this is moral, dishonorable or wrong.

” Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection.”

OK. But that sets up a straw man. A great deal of deference must be paid in a free nation to majoritarian morality. To impose its will on a majority, especially if it involves matters as fundamental as morality, a minority must in the final analysis rely on force or persuasion. The problem with judicial fiat is that no persuasion is involved. It is simply an edict from on high, no different than edicts from the throne recalling the divine rights of kings.

What the Courts have been doing in the area of morality is not creating new moral strictures, i.e.: forcing mandatory church attendance. Instead it is busy demolishing settled moral taboos established over millennia which the drafters of our civil contract – the Constitution – either never addressed or considered perfectly normal.

” To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.”

To suggest that our forefathers died and struggled for pederasts to proudly proclaim their perversions and for same sex marriage is so bizarre as to be amusing.

[gcruse]

To suggest that our forefathers died and struggled for
 pederasts to proudly proclaim their perversions and
 for same sex marriage is so bizarre as to be amusing.

They died for personal freedom.  Not your right
to reject it for others because you think it is immoral.

[kimmie7]

I'd like on the pro-life ping list, please.

[JesseHousman]

They died for personal freedom. Not your right to reject it for others because you think it is immoral.

Oh please!

I'm certain they fought and died so that some butt-rangering homosexual can get his jollies!

How disgusting and perverted is the anal-worshipping homosexuals and their perverted plans for our children!

[gcruse]

What goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom is no concern of yours or the government.

[JesseHousman]

What goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom is no concern of yours or the government.

But when they are permitted a podium in classrooms to describe their various and perverted ways of achieving orgasm to minor children....isn't that my business?

When they smear the Boy Scouts and Judeo-Christian principles....is that not my business?

I think so and you, of course, can think any way you wish but, like most Americans, I'm sick to death of their filthy agenda.

Now. How do you feel about people who are interested sexually in their animals?

[gcruse]

How do you feel about people who are
interested sexually in their animals?

Your parentage is of no interest.

[roderick]

Funny, hah hah. So you believe there's a God given right to bugger your buddy but not be born. Right. Dream on.

[roderick]

In addition to judicial arrongance, doesn't it bother you that judges regularly relieve legislators of their duty to legislate? The RATS controlled Congress for much of the past 30 years but neither the pig Teddy, nor Daschle, Bonior, et al ever bothered to introduce federal law to protect Roe v. Wade. Why? They didn't need to.

Justices for life did their dirty, evil work.

[gcruse]

Since I am not of the gay persuasion, the use of 'your'
is misplaced. Acts between consenting adults, however, are no business of yours or the government. The Georgia Supreme Court says as much, as did the USSC. The whining hasn't subsided from the social conservative side yet, but it will. It's really about liberty, not someone's set of morals itching to become law.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Sorry, but election is not a cure-all for all ailments. If it were, we'd have a pure democracy

I believe that the author was referring to a state of accountability to the electorate rather than the mode of selection. Lifetime appointments without feasible means of removal have no place in a republic and may be the greatest error of our nation's founders in designing our governmental system.