Replies

From where in the Constitution do they derive such powers?

You mean, from where in the Constitution do the states derive such powers? Is that a serious question? I'd expect better from someone of your caliber.

LOL - I finally really shocked you, did I?

Move over, Howard Stern ;-)

And it is true - the judicial magisteria is an illusion, the same way that the dollar is an illusion.

I don't agree with that analogy. The dollar (at least when we have sound currency - don't get me started on that) is more like the law - a fixed standard of reference. A politicized judge is anything but.

And the way they avoid being obvious or blatant about it is by keeping a thumb firmly mashed on the pulse of the people - they track the will of the people and the prevailing political mood of the day very closely.

And you consider this a healthy system? If the only reason we needed a constitution was to protect against blatant usurpations, then we could just as easily do without it completely, since the people will always resist overt attempts on their liberties. The purpose of the Constitution is precisely to protect against the little unnoticeable (or even not-so-little but off-the-radar-screen) usurpations that accumulate over time. That's exactly why the Constitution must be understood as a fixed standard if there's to be any point to it at all.

They don't lead society - they can't lead society in any significant manner.

Wrong, completely wrong. If they followed society, then there'd be little need for them to strike down state laws that liberals don't like (especially ballot questions!), since the people would have already struck them down through the democratic process. It's precisely because liberals can't prevail in democratic persuasion that they turn to courts to enact their agenda.

Tell me, do you think "the people" are really all that offended by Moore's monument? Do you think "the people" wanted to maintain racial preferences at the University of Michigan? Most especially, do you think "the people" would ever have approved of, let alone demanded, using Eurotrash socialistic hogwash as a basis for a SCOTUS ruling?

Why did the courts travel in one direction, only to backtrack later on? The facile answer is, of course, that the courts grew more conservative in the interim. But that overlooks the deeper truth that is at work here - the reason the courts changed is because the country grew more conservative in the interim. By the late 1970's and early 1980's, those earlier rulings were about to begin producing dangerous amounts of grumbling among the citizenry, and that is the one thing that the courts absolutely cannot afford. Those early rulings had to be tweaked in order to bring them back in line with the people, in order to bring them back into that narrow range of action that the people will tolerate from the courts. And so they were.

That's all very touching, but the fact remains that despite their apparent shift to the right, they're still getting more and more brazen with their power. Witness what I referred to above, the citation of foreign law as a basis for rulings. Even Anthony Kennedy is now a convert to that new way of thinking. And in fact, even Clarence Thomas accompanied Kennedy and a couple of other justices abroad for a conference with European judges, although we don't know as of yet what his opinion of this whole mess is. Your characterization earlier in the post is much more accurate: "That's how they can implement those preferred ends, but it's slow and incremental, rather than radical and quick." Exactly right, and exactly the problem.

You mean, from where in the Constitution do the states derive such powers? Is that a serious question?

It's a serious question. With a point to it ;)

And you consider this a healthy system?

"Healthy" or "unhealthy" doesn't enter into it - it is. And will continue to be.

If the only reason we needed a constitution was to protect against blatant usurpations, then we could just as easily do without it completely, since the people will always resist overt attempts on their liberties.

More or less. The Constitution has as much or as little value as the people assign to it, pretty much just like the courts. This is why I said before that "fixed meaning" was worthless if you can't find anyone to agree with you - we may both agree that the Second Amendment has a particular fixed meaning, but if the day comes that the people of the United States decide that the Second Amendment is a meaningless nullity, you and I will be out of luck, fixed meaning or no.

You're missing the point - they still have a narrow area within which they can range. They don't track the polls perfectly, but they don't stray very far either.

It's not about what the people like - it's about what they will tolerate. And they have, are, and will continue to tolerate all those things, as far as I can see. Tell me, do you really think that the courts would have produced such rulings if they thought they were going to spark rioting in the streets? If they thought they were going to produce a serious effort to amend the Constitution? Not on your life, my friend. Whether the people like or want what the courts have done is simply irrelevant - the point is that they will tolerate it, and the courts know that. Someday the people may not tolerate such rulings, and then they will simply blow away like smoke in the wind - I guarantee it.

That's all very touching, but the fact remains that despite their apparent shift to the right, they're still getting more and more brazen with their power.

And they will continue to do so, for exactly as long as the people tolerate it, for exactly as long as the people let them. They can hardly afford to do otherwise. And that's a fact.