1. The radical Leftist have taken control of the education system and the legal system, and have mandated the most radical and absurd standards for society. If you voted Democrat you voted for things like men can menstruate and have babies, police should be eliminated, infanticide should be a societal standard.
2. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.” Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.
While a good start, it must be remembered that the words of the Constitution are law…not the intentions.
3.Next, Bork deals with the idea that reliance on one’s moral philosophy or natural law would solve the dilemma…but, Bork says, “ Not only is moral philosophy wholly inadequate to the task, but there is no reason for the rest of us, who have our own moral visions, to by governed by the judge’s moral predilections.” Now, while many of us believe in the existence of a divinely prescribed natural law, it does not follow that the courts and judges should protect those rights or enforce natural law. Instead, their role should be to interpret text or summarize our traditions. Again, there is no reason to believe that judges would be any better at discerning moral philosophy than are citizens or legislators.
Similarly: “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
4. “The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves.
…the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority. The major difference is that the ayatollahs act as a conservative force, while the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—as on every one of the issues just mentioned—to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values.”
Professor Lino Graglia
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
5. While the rights of a minority must be protected.....in a nation of some 400 million....down to what number should the term 'minority' be assigned?
I have said before that it is a grave error to allow those who claim to be 'offended' to set the standards of society.
We should add the motto "Get Over It" to our currency.
We’ve always had crazy people in America, but we didn’t used to take their guidance.
2. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.” Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.
While a good start, it must be remembered that the words of the Constitution are law…not the intentions.
3.Next, Bork deals with the idea that reliance on one’s moral philosophy or natural law would solve the dilemma…but, Bork says, “ Not only is moral philosophy wholly inadequate to the task, but there is no reason for the rest of us, who have our own moral visions, to by governed by the judge’s moral predilections.” Now, while many of us believe in the existence of a divinely prescribed natural law, it does not follow that the courts and judges should protect those rights or enforce natural law. Instead, their role should be to interpret text or summarize our traditions. Again, there is no reason to believe that judges would be any better at discerning moral philosophy than are citizens or legislators.
Similarly: “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
4. “The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves.
…the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority. The major difference is that the ayatollahs act as a conservative force, while the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—as on every one of the issues just mentioned—to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values.”
Professor Lino Graglia
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
5. While the rights of a minority must be protected.....in a nation of some 400 million....down to what number should the term 'minority' be assigned?
I have said before that it is a grave error to allow those who claim to be 'offended' to set the standards of society.
We should add the motto "Get Over It" to our currency.
We’ve always had crazy people in America, but we didn’t used to take their guidance.
Last edited:
