The Left's Deceit With Disrespect to the Courts
We often hear from liberals how they don't believe in the principles of originalism when it comes to answering questions of statutory or constitutional law. They believe in the idea of a "living constitution" which changes meaning over time. This is fancy language for the fact that liberals do not at all feel constrained by the text or original intent of the Constitution and would much prefer to either make it up as they go or to rape and pillage the language and invent new rights out of the vacant space of the Constitution in order to advance this rabid strain of what they call progressivism.
One must ask, then, why during this hearing of Judge Sotomayor are they using the language of conservatives to sell their radical nominee to the American public? Only when Democrat presidents appoint judges to the Supreme Court do they seem to have any care whatsoever for judicial minimalism, the text and history of the Constitution, judicial restraint, stare decisis, and the proper role of the judiciary in our democratic republic where judges apply the laws written by the Congress as opposed to imposing their own personal political prejudices upon the American people. This is generally the unmentioned strategy of the Left as it relates to the judiciary.
Liberal belief in and adherence to the principle of stare decisis is disingenuous at best and possibly much worse. Their approach to this doctrine of generally sticking by what has already been decided, in order to ensure stability in the law, is eerily similar to their approach to stealing elections, most notably the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state and the recent "victory" by Al Franken over Senator Norm Coleman. In these elections, the Republican earned close, hard-fought victories on election day only to see their Democrat opponent fight the results in court, mysteriously produce heretofore unseen and unaccountable ballots, all until they finally had secured the lead and then declared victory. Like their approach to stare decisis, they will bludgeon the text and original intent of the Constitution until they overturn precedent to their liking, then declare the holy principle of stare decisis as being inviolable. Yet again what is left unsaid by these liberal hatchet jobbers is the most important thing: What has happened prior to our holding the reins of power will only stand until we get our way, and then we will permit no further discussion or dissent. It is how all these years after the Roe v Wade fiasco that people on both sides of the constitutional spectrum admit it wasn't even a remotely proper constitutional decision, and yet it is still inviolable by the Left. You see, even though we all agree that there is nothing in the text or original intent of the Constitution that authorizes the murder of unborn children, the Left will defend this naked act of judicial fiat to the death.
So why bother with the pretense at all? Why is the Left selling us Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next coming of Judge Robert Bork instead of selling her as the next Justice Ginsburg, which is a much more apt comparison? If they believe so deeply in this rigid ideology of outright disrespect for the text and history of the Constitution, why not just say so? The answer is simple: power. The Democrat party knows full well that the American people overwhelmingly reject their notion of a living constitution and their perverted ideas of the role of the judiciary in foisting upon the nation the liberal orthodoxy that proves time and again a losing formula at the ballot box. Their tacit but not so secretive strategy to write their own constitution in the name of our beloved Constitution is so revolting that it must be kept quiet at all costs. That is why you will hear Judge Sotomayor sound more like Chief Justice Roberts in her confirmation hearing than the hack she is replacing, Justice David Hackett Souter.
So then only two intertwined questions remain. Will senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee discharge their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? Or will they further acquiesce to the ongoing Constitutional Convention taking place at the Supreme Court and the congressional liberal assault on the American republic?
One must ask, then, why during this hearing of Judge Sotomayor are they using the language of conservatives to sell their radical nominee to the American public? Only when Democrat presidents appoint judges to the Supreme Court do they seem to have any care whatsoever for judicial minimalism, the text and history of the Constitution, judicial restraint, stare decisis, and the proper role of the judiciary in our democratic republic where judges apply the laws written by the Congress as opposed to imposing their own personal political prejudices upon the American people. This is generally the unmentioned strategy of the Left as it relates to the judiciary.
Liberal belief in and adherence to the principle of stare decisis is disingenuous at best and possibly much worse. Their approach to this doctrine of generally sticking by what has already been decided, in order to ensure stability in the law, is eerily similar to their approach to stealing elections, most notably the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state and the recent "victory" by Al Franken over Senator Norm Coleman. In these elections, the Republican earned close, hard-fought victories on election day only to see their Democrat opponent fight the results in court, mysteriously produce heretofore unseen and unaccountable ballots, all until they finally had secured the lead and then declared victory. Like their approach to stare decisis, they will bludgeon the text and original intent of the Constitution until they overturn precedent to their liking, then declare the holy principle of stare decisis as being inviolable. Yet again what is left unsaid by these liberal hatchet jobbers is the most important thing: What has happened prior to our holding the reins of power will only stand until we get our way, and then we will permit no further discussion or dissent. It is how all these years after the Roe v Wade fiasco that people on both sides of the constitutional spectrum admit it wasn't even a remotely proper constitutional decision, and yet it is still inviolable by the Left. You see, even though we all agree that there is nothing in the text or original intent of the Constitution that authorizes the murder of unborn children, the Left will defend this naked act of judicial fiat to the death.
So why bother with the pretense at all? Why is the Left selling us Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next coming of Judge Robert Bork instead of selling her as the next Justice Ginsburg, which is a much more apt comparison? If they believe so deeply in this rigid ideology of outright disrespect for the text and history of the Constitution, why not just say so? The answer is simple: power. The Democrat party knows full well that the American people overwhelmingly reject their notion of a living constitution and their perverted ideas of the role of the judiciary in foisting upon the nation the liberal orthodoxy that proves time and again a losing formula at the ballot box. Their tacit but not so secretive strategy to write their own constitution in the name of our beloved Constitution is so revolting that it must be kept quiet at all costs. That is why you will hear Judge Sotomayor sound more like Chief Justice Roberts in her confirmation hearing than the hack she is replacing, Justice David Hackett Souter.
So then only two intertwined questions remain. Will senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee discharge their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? Or will they further acquiesce to the ongoing Constitutional Convention taking place at the Supreme Court and the congressional liberal assault on the American republic?
posted by The Rock | 11:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home