Thomas Sowell: Supreme Court prime example of lawlessness

Naples Daily News ^ | 12/25/03 | Thomas Sowell

[mansion]

Lawlessness usually conjures up images of a wild frontier or mobs in the streets. But the painful reality is that the supreme examples of lawlessness in our times are in the august and sedate chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.

If you think the issue in the recent Supreme Court decision upholding campaign finance legislation is whether campaign finance reform is a good idea or a bad idea, then you have already surrendered the far more important and more fundamental idea of Constitutional government.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to regulate what is said by whom, or under what conditions, in a political campaign. On the contrary, the Constitution says plainly, "Congress shall make no law" — no law! — "abridging the freedom of speech."

The merits or demerits of this particular law, restricting what you can say when, or how much money you can contribute to get your message out, are all beside the point. Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?

The sad — indeed, tragic — fact is that they understand completely. They just think that this legislation is a good idea and are not going to let the Constitution stand in their way.

Moreover, they know from experience that if they can snow us with huge amounts of pious rhetoric, saying the kinds of things that the mainstream media will echo, that their wilful exercise of power will go unchallenged. In short, the Constitution be damned, we're doing our own thing.

At least the people who engaged in wild west shootouts or lynch mob violence spared us the pretence that they were upholding the Constitution. Whatever horrors these lawless and murderous people might inflict at particular times and places, they never had the power to undermine the very basis of the government of the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court does — and is in the process of doing just that. Other courts, taking their cue from the top, have likewise behaved like little tin gods, imposing their own notions disguised as law.

One of the tragedies of our time, and a harbinger of future tragedies, is that court decisions at all levels have come to be judged by whether we agree or disagree with the policy that is upheld or overturned.

Recent controversies over gay marriage have been a classic example of failing to see the woods for the trees. The most fundamental issue is not gay marriage. The most fundamental issue is who is to decide whether or not to legalize gay marriage — and all the other decisions that define a free, self-governing people, as distinguished from people living under dictators in black robes.

The political left is all for judicial activism, because courts can impose much of the liberal agenda that most elected officials are afraid to impose, such as racial quotas, gay marriage and driving religious expression underground.

Bitter and ugly fights over judicial nominees are one consequence of liberals' heavy dependence on judges to impose policies which elected officials dare not impose. Decent, honorable and highly qualified people like California Justice Janice Rogers Brown are smeared and lied about because they insist that what the Constitution says still matters.

Sadly, the idea that judges are to make social policy, not just enforce the Constitution and the statutes, has spread even among some conservative constituencies. The National Rifle Association, for example, attacked Justice Brown for upholding California's assault weapons ban.

The issue was not whether Justice Brown personally favored this ban or not. The issue was whether the state legislature had the right to impose such a ban. Since there is no right to bear arms in the California Constitution, and state judges are bound by federal courts' interpretation of that right in the federal Constitution, this decision was the only one to make.

We can't vote for federal judges but we can vote for those who appoint them and those who confirm them. We need to remember judges — and the Constitution — when we are in that voting booth, if we want our votes to continue to mean something.

[mansion]

Didn't see this great Sowell article posted yet...

One of my favorite author/columnists.

California Justice Janice Rogers Brown are smeared and lied about because they insist that what the Constitution says still matters.

We NEED to get her on the SCOTUS!

How about this ticket: Sowell/Brown in 2008? I know, I'm living in a dreamland - but it's nice to dream :)

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to regulate what is said by whom, or under what conditions, in a political campaign. On the contrary, the Constitution says plainly, "Congress shall make no law" — no law! — "abridging the freedom of speech."

The merits or demerits of this particular law, restricting what you can say when, or how much money you can contribute to get your message out, are all beside the point. Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?

The sad — indeed, tragic — fact is that they understand completely. They just think that this legislation is a good idea and are not going to let the Constitution stand in their way.
============================================

Guys, Elect Congresspeople that will IMPEACH the godless bums on courts that nullify the Constitution of the United States of America with it's attendant amendments despite giving their SWORN OATH to "Uphold and Defend" that same document. Peace and love George.

[lainde]

What can be done? They won't retire and enjoy better health than anyone ever imagined. Impeach them...What an uphill battle with an apathetic, uninformed electorate. But ours is a republic if we can keep it. So I guess we just have to start pushing the rock uphill.

[Young Rhino]

While we're dreaming...here are my picks...

Condoleeza Rice/Jeb Bush - Prez/V.P.

Thomas Sowell - Secretary of Education
Walter Williams - Fed. Reserve Chairman
Art Laffer - Fed. Reserver Vice-Chairman
Lawrence Kudlow - Secretary of the Treasury
Ann Coulter - U.S. Attorney General
Oliver North - Secretary of Defense
Antonin Scalia - Chief Justice SCOTUS
Janice Rogers Brown - Associate Justice SCOTUS
Miguel Estrada - Associate Justice SCOTUS
Rush Limbaugh - Secretary of State
Donald Rumsfeld - U.S. Ambassador to France
Bob Dornan - U.S. Ambassador to Russia
Michelle Malkin - INS Commissioner
Pat Buchanan - EPA Administrator
Jonah Goldberg - White House Press Secretary

I expect to be flamed by paleocons for flunking their 100% purity tests.

[patj]

What we have now amounts to a judicial coup.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Some so-called 'conservatives' also think that random suspicionless drug testing of high school students is "a good thing" - based primarily on the fact that they are against the use of illicit drugs. The Supremes, of course (as demonstrated in the Earls decision), are among them.

Not only is this a way to slide socialized healthcare into the schools, it (more importantly) violates the privacy rights of innocent students.

The Supremes decided that parents don't count in this situation, and the schools are free to do what they want.

Anyone interested in the SCOTUS should read this decision; it is a classic of perverted logic and the advancement of socialism.

[LinnieBeth]

Here! Here! Our courts have become tyrants!

Judge Bork's new book is all about the tyranny of the courts. I would love to hear the word impeachment being used in regards to our judges.

[mansion]

that is GREAT! where to start?

Well, Condi is probably the best choice for the first woman president, she could bridge the gap for the GOP as far as women and minorities go. I don't know enough about her to judge conservative bonafides, but the rest of the cabinet and the SCOTUS you picked could keep her in line!

Sowell and Williams would actively campaign to abolish their respective agencies, and I'd LOVE to see what Mrs. Malkin could do with the INS or USCIS or whatever they're calling it now!

Who'd be your pick for Sec. of Homeland Security?

My only complaint: I'd miss Rush on the radio!

[Young Rhino]

Who'd be your pick for Sec. of Homeland Security?

G. Gordon Liddy. :-)

[mansion]

Thurgood Marshall once pointed out that there is no "drug exception" to the constition... They would do well to remember that!

[G.Mason]

Government ....... The "people" giveth ....... the "people" taketh away.

[mansion]

Impeach them...What an uphill battle with an apathetic, uninformed electorate.

You're not kidding - how many people even know that's an option? But if they wouldn't impeach Clinton, I don't even think they'll consider impeaching any of the Supremes..

But ours is a republic if we can keep it.

Is it still?

Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

[snopercod]

We now have an arbitry and capricious government.

It's just too bad that our President places such a low priority on seating his constitutionalist judicial choices. He could make recess appointments right now if he wanted.

...or do as First_Salute has proposed and march over to the Senate and demand an up or down vote when they get back from vacation.

[snopercod]

Correction: You want Alex Kozinski for Chief Justice of SCOTUS.

Don't know who he is? The Big Kozinski . His saving the recall election in California was just an encore to his driving a wooden stake through the heart of junk-science in the courtroom.

[Young Rhino]

He could make recess appointments right now if he wanted.

Rather than make recess appointments (and have the Dimwits with the media distort what transpired), Bush is going to use this as a 2004 election issue. Frist will start moving on the nominees in the spring, the Dimwits will repeat their antics, and Bush will push during his speeches for the election of more GOP Senators. This has been in the planning for some time between Rove and Frist.

[Young Rhino]

Thanks for the info. Interesting fellow. The Dimwits would have coronaries with his nomination. Imagine Byrd, Leahy and Kennedy blustering about the rule of law.

[snopercod]

Bush is going to use this as a 2004 election issue.

That's exactly why I won't vote for him again. He places a higher value on getting re-elected than on the future of America.

The list of his affronts to the U.S. Constitition is long. Don't try to argue with me; my mind's made up.

[Quix]

DEAR FREEPERS: May those of you so inclined and in agreement with Sowell and with the following prayer tell The Lord so and add your weight of agreement to it's impact--or--make adjustments and add your own version of agreement.

Lord God, this author is so right.

Father, God, you have said recently through a prophetic voice that you are going to begin to deal with The Supreme Court and bring it around much more to your priorities and will.

May it be so, Lord. May it be so speedily. Father, where possible bring each Supreme Court Justice to a St Paul Damascus Road experience with THE LIVING GOD such that they know you and support your priorities and values. If they will not, Father, then deal with them as severely as you find necessary. If it is your will that they be removed from the Court and from public life, PLEASE MAKE IT SO ASAP.

And, Father, let it be known--do it in such a way--that it is obvious to any half-wit, even, that YOU, THAT ALMIGHTY GOD HAS DONE THIS THING--THAT ALMIGHTY GOD IS SPEAKING OVERTLY, STARKLY, DRAMATICALLY TO THE SUPREME COURT--AND THAT NO HUMAN COURT IN THE LAND, NO HUMAN COURT ON THE PLANET IS BEYOND YOUR CENSURE OR ADJUSTMENT.

So be it, in Jesus' Precious Name, Amen.

[mansion]

He could do alot of things that I'm sure he won't...

like use his veto power on occasion! I mean, come on! I read somewhere that Reagan had already vetoed 22 bills at this point in his presidency, and he didn't even have line-item veto! (I think!)

I know the FreeRepublic defense of Bush, though: "He's stealing Democrat issues!"

[Quix]

Lord, I believed it when I read recently, that you are going to change Larry King into one of your spokespersons or some such--that he will become aligned with your perspective and priorities. And, that you are going to change ABC NEWS into an organization which speaks out the truth, your truth.

Lord, however accurate that is, to whatever degree you plan to do that--PLEASE DO IT EMPHATICALLY AND SPEEDILY, IN Jesus' Name.