New Supreme Court Looms Heavy Over Democrats

[Bonnie]

September 13th, 2005

Step-by-step, judicial activism, a trend with half a century’s momentum behind it, is being rolled back. The confirmation hearings of John Roberts as the nominee for Chief Justice of the United States got off to such a mild start yesterday that one television host referred to it as less interesting than watching paint dry. It appears that, barring surprises, the new Chief Justice will be sworn in fairly soon.

The real battle, we are told, will be over his successor. Depending on the nominee selected, the Democrats will combine a comprehensive demand for confidential documents with a search for minute evidence of scandal in public or private life, in an effort to defeat anyone perceived as other than a liberal activist. President Bush, knowing this well, will undoubtedly nominate someone as squeaky clean as Roberts.

Absent scandal, they will have only judicial philosophy to discuss, and they will lose. The Washington Post wrote

Democrats came with the intention of talking about their values and their view of the courts as protectors of women's rights and civil rights, and of the importance of preserving an expansive view of the federal government's powers in the face of a series of Supreme Court decisions limiting that power.

If the Democrats do so, they may energize their activist base, but they will lose. The American public is turning against the notion that judges should be Philosopher Kings, wisely imposing needed policies on a feckless citizenry incapable of democratically choosing their fate. John Roberts skillfully employed the metaphor of an umpire in baseball, and image which has far more resonance, in addition to its faithfulness to the original intent of the Constitution.

After six decades of expansion, the tendency of judges to impose their preferences on society, rather than simply interpret the law as written, may have reached its apogee. Judicial activism, as this writing of law from the bench is known, faces a confluence of forces which promise relief for the principles of Constitutionalism, and for the American people they protect. The trend of judicial activism morphing into judicial tyranny faces a perfect storm. Here are some its key elements.

The American public is paying attention.
High profile decisions in which judges nakedly impose their preferences have been accumulating at an accelerating pace. It is no longer an unusual occurrence for Americans to turn on their radios or TVs, or log onto the internet to discover that a judge somewhere has concluded that homosexual marriage is a Constitutional right, or that the death penalty for adolescents has become “cruel and unusual punishment” in the last 15 years, or that the phrase “under God” should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance, or that public display of a Christmas crèche is forbidden, while display of a Islamic crescent is not. A federal judge in Kansas City actually imposed tax increases on citizens, in order to fund a lavish “magnet school” program, as part of a desegregation scheme of his own invention, and which ultimately failed miserably in its goals.

Many of these cases are symbolically connected to many people’s self-identity, or to institutions to which they have passionate attachments. Others affect the self-interests or perceived safety of ordinary people. The law is not some abstract notion or set of principles to them, but rather an ongoing force affecting their lives. Accordingly, public interest in the composition and conduct of the judiciary at all levels has never been higher.

Abortion policy is an increasing, not a receding irritant.
Of course, the lodestone of judicial activist decisions remains Roe v. Wade, in which a wholly fictional “penumbra” of the Constitution was invented to justify judicial control over one of the most controversial, significant and emotion-filled matters in the sphere of public debate, abortion. The decades since Roe was handed down have not cooled the passions or solidified public acceptance of its dictates, but rather have aggravated discontent. Today, both political parties find themselves required to take a stand on abortion, and it is the Republicans, who generally dissent from Roe, who hold the political advantage on the matter.

Public awe of the judiciary is receding.
Judicial activism ultimately depends on public acceptance of the rightness of judges handing down their decrees from Olympian heights. To the extent that judges carefully cite principle and precedent, this awe is reinforced. But conversely, when judges cite ephemera like public opinion polls and current sociological research, they come to be seen as mere human beings with opinions. Like the rest of us.

As never before, the new media are able to focus on instances of judicial misconduct, absurdity, and personal misbehavior among judges. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News Channel has become the number one program on cable news with his regular criticism, by name, of judges who hand down outrageous decisions. Some have even left the bench after his unwelcome attention.

Judicial activism consciously rejects tradition as a guide. This disrespect for the guidelines of the past extends to bricks and mortar. Even when they had to be skyscrapers, courthouses were traditionally designed with the architectural accoutrements of Greek and Roman temples, and judges wore the robes of high priests in order to inspire awe, and therefore passive acceptance of authority. More recent trends in courthouse architecture have substituted the bland features of modernism and postmodernism, which fail to inspire even affection, much less awe. The inhabitants of buildings like the new wave of federal courthouses send the implicit signal that they are more kin to the corporate bureaucrats in adjacent office buildings than they are to the god-like seers and priests of classical antiquity.

Judges and justices are increasingly seen as flawed human beings, rather than as principle-driven protectors of an impartial system. The very nature of judicial activism exposes itself to this perception. George Neumayr cuts to the chase on this point:

If the law represents nothing more than the will of whoever has the most audacity to hijack it, won't it occur to the American people at some point that they too can join in the nihilistic jostling? What if the people thought, "the law is just the will of the strongest," and marched on courthouses and threw lawless judges out on the street? What appeal could these judges make to them -- "You must follow the laws that we don't"?

more

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4817

 

[Avatar4321]

I was watching Senator Biden interview Judge Roberts earlier. The Senator was basically flipping out because the future Chief Justice keeps refusing to answer direct questions about cases he might have to see. Roberts basically nailed him too. And then Biden was complaining about the lack of time he has to question and i was just like "then why dont you ask him your question instead of pontificating"

What I thought was even more amazing was the topic Senator Biden was trying to question him. Biden was trying to grill Roberts on whether he would uphold the "Constitutional right to death". There is no freaking right to death in the Constitution! I wish these Senators would focus more on protecting rights the Constitution does give rather than undermine them to assert "Rights" that the Constitution doesn't give.

 

[Bonnie]

I was watching Senator Biden interview Judge Roberts earlier. The Senator was basically flipping out because the future Chief Justice keeps refusing to answer direct questions about cases he might have to see. Roberts basically nailed him too. And then Biden was complaining about the lack of time he has to question and i was just like "then why dont you ask him your question instead of pontificating"

What I thought was even more amazing was the topic Senator Biden was trying to question him. Biden was trying to grill Roberts on whether he would uphold the "Constitutional right to death". There is no freaking right to death in the Constitution! I wish these Senators would focus more on protecting rights the Constitution does give rather than undermine them to assert "Rights" that the Constitution doesn't give.

Those Senators only live for changing the Constitution to fit their political agenda. If you were to open up their heads and spill what comes out, that's all you'll find.
Did you also notice the nervous shit eatin grin Biden had on his face when the issue of Ginsberg came up? He was caught and he knew it!!

 

[archangel]

Those Senators only live for changing the Constitution to fit their political agenda. If you were to open up their heads and spill what comes out, that's all you'll find.
Did you also notice the nervous shit eatin grin Biden had on his face when the issue of Ginsberg came up? He was caught and he knew it!!

for sure he has more teeth than my horse! :cof:

 

[Annie]

Biden went for the 'impossible' today, trying to say that in judicial confirmations, the 'precedents of Ginsberg et al' shouldn't count. Flat and wrong.

 

[Bonnie]

Biden went for the 'impossible' today, trying to say that in judicial confirmations, the 'precedents of Ginsberg et al' shouldn't count. Flat and wrong.

He really has a brass set huh?

 

[Annie]

He really has a brass set huh?

Or thinks the general public has cotton between their ears. Problem here, related to another thread. The Dems assume stupidity. The administration assumes cognitive abilities above the norm.

 

[Bonnie]

Or thinks the general public has cotton between their ears. Problem here, related to another thread. The Dems assume stupidity. The administration assumes cognitive abilities above the norm.

Seems there is a mighty big disconnect coming from both sides :

 

[nosarcasm]

secession of the blue states is looming.

New Slogan free the Mexican slave labourers in the Southern States.

Will France support the blue states this time around ?

 

[theim]

What is it with libs and their prescious "right to death"? I'm serious, Orwell was a freekn' prophet. Soon we'll be hearing them demanding that the "freedom to be dictated" be instituted.

 

[kurtsprincess]

What is it with libs and their prescious "right to death"? I'm serious, Orwell was a freekn' prophet. Soon we'll be hearing them demanding that the "freedom to be dictated" be instituted.

I keep waiting for one of them to ask if Roberts will support their "freedom to be idiots"!!!