Replies

Imagine a nation in which there is a sharp cultural divide in the population. One group believes in the traditional, time-tested moral values which built the nation. The other group believes in a sexually libertine, secularist, egalitarian society.

But the two sides are not equally large. The traditional group is about 60-65% of the population, while the libertine group is 35-40%. So the libertines are rarely able to enact their agenda through the normal legislative process, for the simple reason that they are outvoted and lose most elections, and they lose virtually all referenda.

But the libertines make a discovery. While they are only 35-40% of the population, they are upwards of 80% of the people making up the judiciary, the media, and the academic world. So they come up with a plan. Unable to enact their agenda through the constitutionally prescribed manner, they devise a strategy of using the judiciary to impose their beliefs and practices on society. They file lawsuits, claiming that existing constitutional provisions "mandate" that their agenda be enacted into law. With a wink and a nod at friendly, well-positioned, lifetime tenured judges, they ask them to "interpret" constitutional provisions ratified decades, or even centuries, ago as mandating legal abortion, legally recognized gay marriage, prohibitions on Nativity scenes in the town square, and many other agenda items.

Now, those constitutional provisions were never in anyone's wildest dreams intended to do such things, and they would have been soundly defeated if anyone had thought they would lead to such things. But, the libertines' allies in the media and academic community immediately go to work, propagandizing that these radical court rulings are "the law of the land", droning on and on about how "the constitution is whatever the judges say it is", and how we need a "living constitution" which "changes with the times".

So the libertines get away with what is, in effect, a coup against the constitution and the citizens of the United States. Conservatives scramble to try to muster the votes to amend the constitution to, let's say, ban gay marriage. But getting the super majorities to amend the constitution is difficult. The libertines usually have enough support to block such amendments from getting two-thirds in one house of congress, for example.

Of course, the libertines don't have to worry about gathering super majorities for amending the constitution. They accomplish their goals be having friendly judges "interpret" amendments ratified many years ago as requiring their agenda to be implemented. In other words, they aren't playing by the rules, but expect us to do just that. In fact, they even ridicule us as "extremists" for trying to amend the constitution by the prescribed method.

Meanwhile, as we're struggling to win enough elections to get a super majority for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, the libertines are busy working on legal briefs to prod the Margaret Marshalls and Anthony Kennedys of the world to "interpret" some 19th century vaguely worded constitutional passage as legalizing polygamy, or mandating food stamps for illegal aliens, or banning public speeches against homosexuality as "hate speeches" which threaten "diversity".

That's exactly the situation we're in right now.

There are only three options:

1) Simply raise the white flag, bow to the courts as our dictators, and promise to obey all their edicts from now to eternity, effectively admitting we no longer live in a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.

2) Amend the constitution to overturn the rulings, which is difficult and forces us to play by the very rules our opponents ignore. Can you imagine "liberals" trying to amend the constitution to mandate gay marriage? Why do that when it's much simpler to get a friendly, ideologically-driven leftist judge to "interpret" some ancient law as mandating it?

3) Start ignoring these illegal, abusive, and unconstitutional judicial fiats. One man alone can't do this. It needs to be a mass effort in which we, as a large segment of the population, simply assert our independence of our judicial lords and masters and refuse to obey them.

The fourth option is to keep pushing for more conservative judges and eventually the pendulum will swing back to where it is more to your liking and probably too far for my tastes.

I agree that the far left has overused the court system in trying to push their agenda. But I think both the far left and the far right try equally hard to install judges that they believe will render decisions more to their liking. I also think that even "conservative" judges are always going to make rulings that might look moderate and even liberal to many. Putting on those robes and given the lofty responsibility of interpreting our laws has an effect on people. Even the most conservative often make decisions guided by principles of fairness, tolerance and a strong sense that Constitutional rights should be protected and freedoms should be guarded and even in some instances expanded to the limits of our Constitution.

I'm not as bothered as you are by the "liberal judiciary." I do not believe that 80% of the people making up the judiciary, the media, and the academic world strive for a sexually libertine and secularist society. It may seem that way to you, but that is not the case. I think that is over-hyped rhetoric by the far right. While there certainly are far left kooks out there pushing extreme agendas, I don't see the same vast left wing conspiracy you see. The fact of the matter is that those in the media, the judiciary and in higher education tend to be educated and educated people tend to be more liberal on social issues than uneducated people. They do tend to be egalitarian. They've usually been exposed to more diversity than less educated people and are more likely to be understanding and tolerant of others and others' beliefs. That does not make them all far left extremists who want to promote alternative sexual lifestyles, murder babies and drive Christianity out of America.

Being tolerant and valuing freedom does not make one less conservative. Seeking to amend the Constitution in order to place further limitations on the states and further concentrate power in the federal government is in no way a conservative goal. A radical shift in the power structure of our nation by killing the authority of one of our three branches of government would not make our nation more conservative or more free. It would seriously diminish the safeguards that would protect us in the future from more sinister administrations who would abuse the power if they had it.

Our system may not be perfect, but the judicial branch of government provides a critical check and balance against the potential abuses of the other branches of government.