Order in the Court (Ingraham)

www.LauraIngraham.com ^ | February 26, 2004 | Laura Ingraham

[Choose Ye This Day]

Order in the Court!

Gasps are coming from the Left-and even from the Libertarian Right-about the President's decision (finally!) to confront our increasingly activist judiciary. This is an attempt to create a "wedge issue" echoed the lemmings in the media. This is another Bush attempt to "divide" the country!

Yet any gasps should be directed at the bench, where for decades Americans have seen their views and their traditions systematically trashed. Whether it's the issue of marriage, prayer at football games, or God in the Pledge of Allegiance, we've seen courts from coast to coast venture far beyond proper role in a naked attempt to create a new, forward-thinking social, political, and cultural framework.

From time to time in our history, Presidents have had to challenge the Supreme Court. Lincoln openly disagreed with the Court's Dred Scott Decision. FDR threatened to pack the Court because of its New Deal decisions. These presidents played a vital role in preventing the Court from thwarting the legitimate wishes of the American people.

For over 30 years, conservatives have been complaining about the courts, but the truth is, we've never really done that much about it. Republican presidents have put people like David Souter and John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and things have just gotten worse. President Reagan heralded the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor-a sharp, delightful person-yet she has consistently pushed the Court into dangerous territory. And let's not forget Anthony "You Have a Constitutional Right to Sodomy" Kennedy, another Reagan appointee.

President Bush and his supporters have to make clear that the fight over the gay marriage amendment is not a fight about gays, not a fight about marriage, but a fight about the power of the Courts. Conservatives should never take the process of amending the Constitution lightly, and President Bush should make it abundantly clear that this is a last resort given what the abuse by courts on the federal and state level.

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, among others, have insisted that the gay marriage issue be "left to the states." If reporters/anchors bothered to ask a follow-up question, they would point out that Justice Souter and his ilk will never be content to leave it to the states. (See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Rather they are intent on imposing Massachusetts' law on every state in America.

The salient point is that in a democracy, a few isolated individuals should not be allowed to make such sweeping changes in our law. This is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people, not a government of highly-placed lawyers who seek to impose their vision (much of which they get from European courts) on an unwilling populace.

Restraining the judiciary must be the top priority for conservative from now until judges get back to the business of judging. Some conservatives find themselves beguiled by the ritual, formality and history of the judiciary--the robes, the high ceilings. Now they must push beyond the nostalgia and finally recognize that too many courts have become agents for the most radical forces in our society. By now everyone should understand why Sen. Chuck Schumer & Co. have been fighting so viciously to block Bush's judicial nominees-the Courts are the one place where the Left has been consistently winning.

Can you feel the pendulum swing? I can.

[Choose Ye This Day]

So now the Dems are on the States-rights bandwagon. So do they now support a state's right to outlaw abortion, thus making a federal Roe v. Wade decision irrelevant?

[Choose Ye This Day]

Laura Ingraham PING!

[Dan Middleton]

>>So now the Dems are on the States-rights bandwagon. So do they now support a state's right to outlaw abortion, thus making a federal Roe v. Wade decision irrelevant?<<

Good question - how mny states had a law on the books against abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade? 38? Over 40?

[Colonel_Flagg]

Whether it's the issue of marriage, prayer at football games, or God in the Pledge of Allegiance, we've seen courts from coast to coast venture far beyond proper role in a naked attempt to create a new, forward-thinking social, political, and cultural framework.

Thanks for the ping. Another strong effort by Ingraham.

My only difference with her is in her use of the phrase "forward-thinking". I refuse to believe that the trashing of our national values and scandalization of our culture is "forward-thinking" in any way.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Too many courts have become agents for the most radical forces in our society. By now everyone should understand why Sen. Chuck Schumer & Co. have been fighting so viciously to block Bush's judicial nominees-the Courts are the one place where the Left has been consistently winning. -Laura Ingraham

Millions of middle-of-the-road Democrats believe the party line that judicial nominees like Priscilla Owen are rabid right-wingers. It would be great if half of those millions withdrew their support for Democrat candidates until the national party pulled back their obstruction.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Good point. Maybe "progressive-thinking" would be better, as "progressive" is currently defined in the political arena, to mean: high taxes, low morals.

[Moleman]

Wow, thanks for the picture Laurra is pretty hot- and smart.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Why not call it what it is: "damaging"?

[ClearCase_guy]

In 100 years (less, actually) the Roe v Wade decision will be seamlessly linked with the Dred Scott decision as examples of terrible court decisions that led to long periods of suffering in the US before a moral status quo was re-asserted.

The homosexual marriage decisisons are the spark that sets the fire, but the fuel has been piling up for over 30 years.

[Sabertooth]

Good question - how mny states had a law on the books against abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade? 38? Over 40?

More than 30 states allowed some form of legal abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade.

I'm listening to George Will on the Laura Ingraham Show right now, and he just pointed out that the most reckless SCOTUS justices of the last 40 years were appointed by Republicans: Warren, Brennan, Stevens, and Souter.

Scary.

[SAMWolf]

Restraining the judiciary must be the top priority for conservative from now until judges get back to the business of judging.

Laura Bump

[whereasandsoforth]

I have a problem with that "forward thinking" remark, too. It seems to lend a credibility were none exists. "Forward thinking" took us from the stagecoach to the 747. Taking us down a slime-covered path to moral decay is "evil thinking".

[Morgan in Denver]

Ingraham writes well on this. I just wish she wasn't such a whiner on her radio program. Her constant whining is grating to listen to so I keep having to change stations.Ingraham writes well on this.

[Redcoat LI]

The Anne Coulter doctrine of posting a picture on the thread needs to be extended to Laura Ingraham.

Show of hands if you agree.

[axel f]

I have been to leftist events. In addition to calling their ideas "progressive" they always call themselves "forward-thinking." I think Ingraham was mocking them.

[boop]

Help me to understand how 60-70% of Americans being opposed to homosexual marriage are all "right wing". Why are liberals never asked about this? Even a majority of democrats oppose gay marriage. If anything it is a "wedge issue" for the democrat leadership. This is a GOOD thing.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Indeed. But when mocking, authors should use quotation marks. Considering the proven track record the opposition has for taking comments out of context, why take the chance?

[capydick]

Excellent Point!!!

I hope that W uses this exact analogy in the campaign. If you think this is a States Rights issue, than you cant pick and choose which issues belong to the States and which issues you believe the Federal Government decrees. Why pick the gay marriage issue as a State Right but not abortion, the Right to Carry, etc. Hammer the RAT with this point and it will result in additional votes for W.

[axel f]

I agree.

[axel f]

She looks even better in person.