Modern liberalism is fundamentally at odds with democratic government because it demands results that ordinary people would not freely choose. Liberals must govern, therefore, through institutions that are largely insulated from the popular will. The most important institutions for liberals’ purposes are the judiciary and the bureaucracies.
In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln asserted: "The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Lincoln was thinking of Dred Scott. Today, however, his observation is even more pertinent, as we have resigned into the hands of the federal judiciary ever more vital questions affecting the whole people. We have in very significant measure ceased to be our own rulers.
The Supreme Court, without authorization from any law, has changed our policies and our culture. That process continues as the lower federal courts are following the Supreme Court’s example. The courts, without the authorization from law, are taking out of the hands of the American people the most basic moral and cultural decisions. [Robert Bork, 1995]
The most recent example of what Judge Bork describes is a federal judge ordering the military to accept out-of-the-closet homosexuals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Why is this a liberal thing? Your most recent example of a court "....taking out of the hands of the American people...." is a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, hardly a bastion of liberalism, unless all are created equal is liberal thing. Give them some credit as they succeeded where many a lib have failed with this law.
Also, since polling seems to indicate most Americans are fine with doing away with DADT, I think again you are using a poor example. Also, since the Dept. of Justice immediately got a stay from the 9th court of appeals, it would seem to me you again lose the liberal part of this with this example, especially since they could have done nothing and just allow the ruling to stand. Not to mention that Obama even after this ruling has repeatedly stated that his desire is for the Senate to follow the house and repeal the law.
So, you can argue, and I might even agree, that the court has no business ordering our military what to do, and that the courts overstep their bounds from time to time, but to say it is a liberal thing.....I don't think so. It's the I don't get my way thing, so let's go to court.
The case I mentioned is only the latest example of the courts determining public policy, which is NOT their role. Perhaps her ruling will not stand. That is irrelevant to my point. Using the courts to accomplish what cannot be accomplished legislatively is a tactic of liberals, not conservatives. Of course, Congress has the power to override a Supreme Court decision, but when you add the liberals together with the RINOs, it ain't gonna happen. Instead they will applaud these kinds of decisions and the usurpation of democratic government will continue until we are all back under tyranny of one sort or another.
Modern liberalism, i.e. communism, is, of course, anti-democratic. The point is not to achieve political ends by democratic means. The point is to obtain power by any and all means--moral or immoral, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. The ends justify any and all means. The objective is power for a self-appointed elite who live to control other people's lives, and who don't care anything about democracy or the rule of law. It is no mere coincidence that people like Obama keep company with bomb-throwing anarchists. This is why communism is incompatible with the American form of government, as people are apparently now discovering after two blundering years of a communist government. Because communists are terrified of their mortal enemy, the truth (this is why communists hate and fear Glenn Beck), they try to prevent people from learning from history; and that is why we have had to repeatedly go through these foolish flirtations with utopian communism.
Using the courts to accomplish what cannot be accomplished legislatively is a tactic of liberals, not conservatives.
Really? So it's those silly liberals suing the government over health care? Guess so, since the big objection to health care is a republican idea from the 90's. Bob Dole I think.
By the way, didn't this judge say the constitutional rights of gays were being violated by this law? Or don't gays have any rights? Maybe we should just get Richard Cohen to cure them all.
Apples and oranges, Tom. It is perfectly appropriate for 20 state attorneys general to petition the courts to overturn an obviously unconstitutional law. It's another matter all together for a judge to create out of whole cloth a constitutional right for practicing homosexuals to serve in the military. Not one word has changed in the Constitution for years, yet this federal judge manages to suddenly see this right. That is judicial fiat. That is the judiciary setting public policy.
This policy is on the very brink of changing through legislative action. If it does, so be it (I don't plan on showering in any Army barracks in the near future).
For Congress to change the law after public debate is legitimate, so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. For a federal jodge to change it is judicial tyranny. Judge Bork had it exactly right.
David, they have always had the right. They are in there now. They have been in the military probably since the inception of this country. Her ruling was not that they can serve. Her ruling was the military cannot just arbitrarily kick them out for being gay. I think some of her ruling was the military overstepped their bounds by not asking, but by breaking into email accounts and other nefarious methods. The judge also felt if the military felt gays were such a jeopardy overall, then why did they continually let them serve out their time in Iraq and Afghanistan and not discharge them until their tour was up?
I know some gay guys and even as cute as I am, they have never hit on me. This crap about gays and straights sharing a foxhole and the gay coming on to the straight, is just that, crap. Much more likely for the straight guy to hit on woman than guy on guy.
I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where anyone has a right to serve in the military. The military has always had the power to decide who they would accept and who they would not. The rules for military service should be decided by military people and the legislature, not federal judges.
And they have always accepted gays who might have lied about it. Now they just don't ask and the gays don't tell. That is by legislation back in the 90's. If you want to ignore the fact the military hacked into email accounts, then feel free.
I sure have not read her whole opinion, but what I have read I agree with some and disagree with probably more than I agree with, but I am no legal eagle. Ask Brain, I am just a commie that is coming for him.
Why would you say I'm ignoring the fact that the military hacked into email? If someone broke the law, let him pay the penalty. But the fact that someone may have hacked into email is no basis for changing the military's induction standards. My understanding was that this judge ordered the military to begin inducting avowed homosexuals. That order has now been temporarily stayed as it should be.
I guess from what I read she said the law was unconstitutional based on certain rights which in turn defaulted to letting them in. I will agree the court should not be setting induction standards for the military, but I think it is appropriate for the court to step in when the military starts violating certain rights of its service members.
ON a side note: I would be happy to bet you 50 bucks that the Supreme court upholds the mandate that is being contested in the health care bill.
Amazing that after all these years one federal judge suddenly recognizes that the military is violating the rights of homosexuals and orders the military to start admitting them. How come no one ever noticed this violation of the Constitution before now? And exactly which right is it that the military has been violating?
I don't bet money.
maybe it was the first time they were sued on those constitutional questions. Beats me. I know the suit was filed in 2004, so it took 6 years just to get to trial which is insane in itself.
From what I heard, free speech and due process were the violations. How she determined that? Dunno.
What is funny though is the Republican and conservative pundit reaction to this. They are for the most part against repeal of DADT despite polling showing the public is for repeal. Yet when polling showed the public was against health care they demonized Dems for not listening to and going with the public. Hypocrites with no shame. Just like on the stimulus. Stimulus they said won't create any jobs, the gov. in incapable of creating jobs, yet there is Michele Bachman writing to a gov. agency asking for stim funds that will create 3000 jobs in her district.
Tom, you always seem to overlook the fact that all true conservatives are guided by a set of core values. There is no hypocrasy at all in opposing Obamacare on the grounds that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to require the citizens to buy a particular product. The fact that the public is against it is not, in an of itself, the correct basis. Public opinion does not change values. Values are in place, regardless of what the majority of the public thinks. This is what you don't seem to be willing to accept. If a particular policy is unconstitutional, does harm to the nation as a whole, and is opposed by the majority of the people, that's the Triple Crown. But if the first two exist, or even the first one, then to the true conservative, the third one doesn't really matter. It didn't matter to Lincoln that the majority didn't want to immediately free the slaves.
Also, I didn't hear anyone say the slush fund (sorry, the stimulus)wouldn't create any jobs. That wasn't the argument (except in instances where someone was using hyperbole). The problem was that it wouldn't create enough jobs or the right kinds of jobs. Will it add to the bureaucrasy? Sure. But who wants that other than big government types. To me, the real argument, which was never very clearly trumpeted, was that there were better ways to help the economy without adding another trillion to the national debt.
Post a Comment