Posted by
Furious on Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:24:05 AM
I am not a lawyer and I don’t even play one on television but I am a citizen. As such, I have a right and a duty to question those who presume to rule over me. Indeed it is usually my political opposites who make the most noise over our government’s real or alleged abuses of power. What are the slogans they use?... “Speaking truth to power?” “Standing up for those unable to stand?” “Fighting special interests?” “Demanding out civil rights?” “Power to the People?”….all of the above?
Having read our constitution and been taught it’s truths a few years back, I am still astounded by what learned and experienced judges can find in its text. It really is not a complex document. It was written by wise, practical people who simply believed power must be diluted or it will become oppressive. Actually it is very straight-forward in its words and rules. Basically, whatever power NOT delineated by this document is to be the providence of the states or the people. The founder’s worst fears are becoming true.
No state ever gave up its right to operate its school systems. Yet we openly have Presidential candidates calling for national tests and standards, along with a Judiciary who demand that they educate non-citizens.
No citizen ever gave up his right to choose how he provides health care for himself and his family. Yet we have politicians and lawyers in a black robe writing law that does nothing to help, either the cost or the choices, we have.
No state has yet given up its right to determine what marriage is and isn’t. It is almost universally accepted, of course, that the principles of a state sponsored union of two people are of the opposite sex.
But a few courts, since the Bowers case (that de-criminalized sodomy) have decreed state laws obsolete.
On the other side, when citizen rights are overrun by government interests, the courts have been just as troubling. When a land developer, in concert with a town council, decided it needed more revenue; the town simply sold private property out from under its citizens to that developer. And the court AGREED with the town. Individual property rights fell to a few ambitious politicians, with the left wing Justices, nodding in agreement.
And nowhere did I ever see where the states abdicated its authority to uphold its criminal laws to the Federal government. In short, the Feds do not have the authority to change such a law, unless it runs counter tour Constitution. How in the world can anyone argue, by using the written words in our founding documents, that states can not determine what is a capital offense? How is it cruel to inject a sub-human with a needle to sedate him and then another to stop his monstrous heart? If they can deduce that this is cruel and unusual punishment, then why could every addict and drug user who ever lived argue that this simple procedure often brings pleasure, not punishment.
They can nod with approving looks to each other, when a lower court starves and de-hydrates a brain damaged woman, yet they can somehow find sympathy for a child rapist? This is insanity!
Where is the tipping point between proper judicial oversights in the idea to protect those most vulnerable, between a naked, vulgar power grab by Washington lawyers?
And how is it that foreign terrorists now have all the rights and privileges that I have? Where is that written? Or is that simply a penumbra or an implied right or somehow, in the tortured logic of a liberal psycho lawyer, just “fair”. We must be fair.
In other words: Who wins when the court takes power it does not have?
Why bother with states and municipalities and popular seventy at all? Let’s just run everything through Justice Kennedy. Let’s just make him Pope. Might as well, he claims infallibility already.
How have the most vulnerable among us-the children-been protected by the courts? Not well.
How have the courts helped in our war on terrorists? Not well.
How have the courts promoted individual liberty or states rights or property rights or individual responsibility? Not well.
How have the true victims of rape and murder been helped by the misplaced sympathy shown by the closeted men in robes for the monsters who prey on the innocent? Not at all.
When will the other two-co-equal branches-reassert their authority and rein in the overreaching justices who are becoming a national disgrace. You see, when we give up our freedoms and rights; there will always be a tyrant standing there to take them. And we don’t get them back easily.
Who wins when the court sides with monsters? I think the monsters. And how is that a good thing, Mr. Justice?