The Imperial Presidency? How About the Imperial Supreme Court?

I have to say I've grown quite tired of the Bush-bashing nonsense. We've had to sit back and listen for the last few years now while liberals throw toxic epithets at our president (yes, I said OUR president), calling him a "dictator", "King George", "Nazi", "fascist", etc., etc., etc. This is disgraceful behavior no matter who is sitting in the White House. No president should be subjected to this sort of abject and unfounded name-calling. Criticize the man for his policies, but please check the "Nazi" business at the door. As a Jew I'm offended by that. As an American I'm repulsed by it. I voted for Bush in 2004 and not just because the other guy was and continues to be a traitor to his country. The reality is that NO president is perfect, and George W. Bush is no exception to that rule. He has failed his country in many ways big and small, a topic I will write about in the future. But he's no dictator, and the constitutional crisis we're all hearing about isn't rearing its ugly head because of an "imperial presidency". No, the constitutional crisis we face has been handed to us by the Supreme Court.

It's rather remarkable that the American people, a group cut from the cloth of revolutionaries, would sit back and accept the rulings of unelected, unaccountable judges that make sweeping pronoucements from up high on how we should live our lives. It's comforting, really, to know that the public accepts the concept of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. But the Supreme Court continues to overstep its authority and mask a furtherance of rule by men in the shroud of the Constitution, and thereby the rule of law. There can be no greater instance of this oligarchical attitude by the "Liberal 5" than the Hamdan decision, of which I commented on a few days back.

We face a constitutional crisis brought about by the Supreme Court's arrogant attitude toward the two elected branches of government and its disdain for the American people. Abortion on demand? Get your five votes on the Court and it's yours. Gay marriage? Same. Eminent domain? Hope you don't own any property because it's safer to rent right now. The list goes on. But the stark reality we face is this: at every turn the Supreme Court seeks to expand its jurisdiction over the American people and remove the decision-making authority from the two branches of government directly accountable to the public. But why?

Judges and lawyers believe themselves to be more enlightened than the "average" American, especially on matters of the Constitution. It's true that judges and lawyers now have a better understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence than the American people because judges and lawyers have been torturing the plain language of the Constitution for decades upon decades, perhaps even dating back to the early years of the Republic. But the Founders wrote the Constitution in very plain language for a reason, and that reason was to ensure that the people would understand the founding document of their new government to ensure that every American would be able to hold accountable those who would abuse their power. I would encourage you all to read this piece (http://www.tinyapps.org/not_yours_to_give.html) about Col. Davy Crockett and Horatio Bunce to get a sense of exactly what I'm referring to here.

The liberal judges on the Supreme Court (Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and a teetering Kennedy) all believe themselves to be better than you and me, and that's why they force their liberal ideology down the collective throat of the American people. That's why they feel free to look to foreign courts and foreign law when making up the rules as they go along, despite the fact that the take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution itself. It's funny how you never see Scalia and Thomas (the jury is still out on Roberts and Alito) looking anywhere but to the Constitution to make decisions concerning the Constitution! It's because they are the two that bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, and why the liberals fear more judges like them being nominated to sit on the Supreme Court. I need only reference Judge Robert Bork here to prove my point. Judge Bork was considered by people of every political stripe to be the MOST knowledgeable and respected scholar on matters of the Constitution, but because he grounded his jurisprudence in the bedrock of originalism he was feared by liberals who could never let him sit on the Court. Hence Teddy Kennedy's unimaginable assault on Bork's character.

We face an ever-growing crisis that has now reached epic proportions that threatens to dissolve the Constitution's separation of powers and completely neuter the two elected (and therefore accountable) branches of our federal government, as well as destroy the republican form of government and federalist nature of the Republic that are guaranteed to us. The arrogance of the Supreme Court cannot continue unabated if we wish to remain a free people. The Constitution guarantees to us the ability to decide most of the hard questions of social policy through our elected representatives, but four members of our highest Court don't feel they can sit idly by while a bunch of hicks that live in the "red states" make decisions for themselves. The American people should be insulted, and we should be kicking down the doors of our representatives to make sure our voices are heard. Judges who violate the Constitution are accountable to the Congress. We should make it so. The imperial presidency? Ha! It's long past time to address the imperial Supreme Court.