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.

[pabianice]

Being remembered as one of the most evil and stupid women in American history will be O'Connor's distinction. Some honor.

[aruanan]

I'll bet that burning in effigy the justices in question wouldn't be considered by them to be constitutionally-protected speech.

[Athelas]

I am so angered by what is going on in the SCOTUS. This truly is a bigger threat to our way of life than anything I've seen in my lifetime and I include the terrorist threat in that. This is getting -way- too little attention on our side of the political spectrum. This SCOTUS has totally run amok. Equal protection doesn't really mean "Equal". What part of "shall make no law" you figure they're having trouble with? I was absolutely FLOORED by this decision. I thought they might uphold the soft money part but banning purely political speech for 60 days before an ELECTION?!?!

We NEED NEED NEED some decent judges on this court before we turn into Belgium in north America.

Republicans control all three bracnches of government for the first time in my life. Yet the left's agenda marches on unimpeded.

[Thom Pain]

"If Congress wouldn't impeach Bubba..."

Congress DID impeach Bubba; the ball-less Senate didn't convict him! And conservatives/republicans who didn't bother to vote in '98 (right before the Senate "trial") are to blame for not sending a mandate to the Hill.

Pray let us not repeat that mistake this time. If we provide an overwhelming republican landslide at every level this coming November, perhaps those we send to office will be emboldened to do the right thing.

[Admin Moderator]

Follow Posting Guidelines and knock off the personal attacks. Thank you.

[Sarastro]

Donald Rumsfeld - U.S. Ambassador to France

ROTFLOL!

[oldfart]

Sure, the Republicans control all three branches of government, but who says they're not leftists too? There's no real difference between the major parties anymore, except the rapidity with which one will strip our freedoms away over the slower, more devious, 'other' party.

In one of Vin Suprynowicz's books he told a story about the 1932 election. He outlined the party platforms of the Democrats and the Socialists. The two were so diametrically dis-similar it couldn't be missed. The Socialists had all the usual leftist goals while the Democrats touted a platform that sounded almost like our present-day Libertarian platform.

Well, the Democrats won of course, and immediately began to include nearly all of the planks of the Socialist platform. It's been downhill from there.

I read something recently about a man who had died and been given a choice between Heaven and Hell. He wanted to see what each was like before he made his final decision, so he got to visit each.

Heaven was very nice, but rather tame, what with all the hymn singing and lying around on clouds. Hell, on the other hand was a lot more lively. He saw a bunch of his old friends drinking and partying and generally having a great time. "What happened? This isn't what I was promised!" he screamed.

Satan laughed evilly, "Those were campaign promises. Now you've elected us. Here, have some brimstone."

I wish that story could be likened to the Democratic party, but the Republicans are no better.

[snopercod]

Yeah, the prevailing sentiment around here is that full-blown socialism is OK if it has an (R) after it's name.

[oldfart]

Sorry. I proofread it and it looked good, but part of it got dropped somehow.

Anyway, when our "hero" chose Hell and finally moved in, he found that things had changed for the worse. It was the same old Hell he had been warned about as a child.

[oldfart]

"If we provide an overwhelming republican landslide at every level this coming November, perhaps those we send to office will be emboldened to do the right thing.

Sure. And perhaps pigs will fly too.

[snopercod]

America will have a statist in the White House no matter who wins in 2004.

I think the best we can do right now is to forget about the presidency and work toward getting some people elected to the legislatures who cherish the constitution.

In theory anyway, the president can't expand government without the consent of the legislature.

[Publius6961]

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.

Ninety years ago, defining a National crisis in these terms was unthinkable. No one was stupid enough, dumb enough, passive enough to accept BS as legal argument in the face of plain language. The founding fathers were simply incapable of imagining that such a scenario could realistically take place.
Impeachment? Try fitting this into "high crimes and misdemeanors"! Let's not even go there if you turn to "moral turpitude". These clowns are first class turpid, and there is no one (literally) who will say, out loud, that the emperor has no clothes!

[Publius6961]

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.

Hmmmmmm.
I WISH!

We still have the EPA, the ADA, second hand killer smoke laws popping up everywhere...

Xplain to me how the wooden stake thing works. Are they just making a better class of vampires now?

[inquest]

You're talking about having Congress impeach a court for upholding Congress's own law?

Why is the outrage all of the sudden being directed at SCOTUS? Congress is the one primarily responsible for this abomination - they're the ones at whom our wrath should be directed. So what's going to done? Are we going to make them feel it? How?

[Publius6961]

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

That's cool.
Just share with us whom you would have instead that is electable.

And better.

[Gritty]

BTTT

[tpaine]

Thomas Sowell: Supreme Court prime example of lawlessness
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047198/posts?page=2

KC Burke wrote:
Perhaps the so-called, right-of-center, O'Connor should be the first to be hit with an impeachment bill for her open admission of adherence to a slew of legal tradition from other nations, outside our Constitution, in a recent tradition.
As that is in direct violation of her sworn duty the case is made by her own words.
A conservative would introduce a bill, upon Principle and Dems would stumble in circles conflicted whether to defend the perversion or to adhere to their Principle and always act for political advantage.

Probably be a stand for RLC to make. Now, if tpaine was in the US House, we might have a chance. It would be great fun to watch.

---

In my opinion ALL of the USSC should be impeached for failing to do their duty in refusing to hear the recent CA 'assault weapon' case.

Sowell insanely applauds them by taking this stance on 'states rights', & against our 2nd amendment:

"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."
-Sowell-
______________________________________

Beats me how an intelligent man like Sowell can rightly denounce O'Connor for her unconstitutional CFB stance, citing "Congress shall make no law"..
-- Then turn right around in the same article and ignore "Shall not be infringed"...

[snopercod]

Read Kozinski's opinion on the appeal of Daubert v. Merrill Dow, then get back to me.

[Quix]

Guess I don't speak that language . . .

but I'm moderately teachable and very interested!

[tpaine]

Thomas Sowell wrote:

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.


"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."
-Sowell-

---

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes States to prohibit the right to keep arms.

On the contrary, the Constitution says plainly, " The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

The merits or demerits of this particular law are all beside the point. Just what part of "shall not" doesn't the Supreme Court justices, or Thomas Sowell types 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.

---