Regnat Populus

The people rule.

Posts Tagged ‘judicial activism’

Wanted: Judge With Empathy

Posted by Max Barron on May 20, 2009

Married black President seeking politically correct Justice with empathy for the downtrodden and innate hatred for the successful.  Willing to rewrite Constitution and legislate from the bench. Also likes long walks on the beach. 

If Barack Obama took out a “Wanted ad” in the classifieds for Supreme Court nominee, that’s what it would look like.  Or so it would seem because every potential nominee on the various “short lists” appear to be the kind of kooks that come along with personal ads. 

As of Tuesday May 20th the President has been interviewing possible picks for the nomination.

President Barack Obama began interviewing potential Supreme Court candidates Tuesday, while a senior White House official defended the president’s stated preference for a nominee who will give the powerless “a fair shake.”

As discussed previously, “a fair shake” is not only a minimal qualification for Obama it is also the crux of a larger problem.  Judicial activism.  Obama wants a judge that uses their personal empathy when interpreting law.  The trouble is – law doesn’t use empathy… if it did then it wouldn’t be law.  Laws are rules to be obided by all who are under them and upheld by those appointed to the courts.  Laws aren’t to be re-written or re-interpreted by the courts.  The U.S. Congress does that.  It is for Congress to write laws, the President to sign them, and the Judiciary to uphold them.  If a judge seeks to follow their heart and not the letter of the law when deciding cases, then in essence a lawless society is created.  One that is governed not by reason and law, but a soft tyranny that is governed by platitudes and emotions.  There is no justification for this sort activism… and no excusing the support for it.  But that doesn’t stop our Oligarch-in-Chief’s Minister of Propaganda from trying to.

“Fidelity to the Constitution is paramount, but as with any document that was written no matter how brilliantly centuries ago, it couldn’t possibly have anticipated all the questions that would be asked in the 21st century,” Mr. Axelrod said.

The duplicitous nature of Axelrod’s statement should be readily apparent to any reasonable and learned individual.  He states with certainty what is the general consensus amongst the statist left.  That the Constitution is a living document to be changed at their whim. And that it is also an old, out-of-touch and outdated document in need of revision.  This is simply not the case.  The Constitution is not living and breathing.  It is a limiting charter written in stone, 10 Commandments style.  Doubtlessly, the statists would love to see a “The 10 Commandments” style breaking of the tablet – with a judge in place of Charlton Heston, less melodrama and of course, they’ll keep the Golden Calf.  It just wouldn’t be right to throw stone tablets at “The One.”

Colorful imagery aside, if Obama manages to push his empathetic nominee through the Senate Confirmation hearings, much less one or two more later, a breaking of the tablets is precisely what will happen.  It is readily apparent that judicial legislation, soft tyranny and social justice are the intent – given that Obama believes that difficult cases should be decided “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”  We can look forward to class warfare being not just the rule of Democrat politics, but also the rule of law.

Non-vicitim groups, gird your loins!


Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Economic Justice, A Constitutional Right?

Posted by Max Barron on January 7, 2009

Economic equality, a constitutional right?  It isn’t yet, but mark my words, if the left has its way, it will be.  How is this to be accomplished in a capitalist society?  The 14th amendment.  The 14th amendment, benevolent in its intent, will be flipped on its head and bastardized into a constitutional law providing economic equality as a right.  Remember the 2001 audio clip, in which Mr. Obama was discussing the Warren Court, that resurfaced during the presidential campaign?  In this interview, Mr. Obama states:

“Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

It is, and has been, clear from day one that Mr. Obama has socialistic leanings (in the same sense that Karl Marx had them).  What has not always been clear is the methods that he will use to achieve his end goal – economic “justice.”  While his tax plan is a clear enough example, it may not see its way through Congress.  It is my opinion, and prediction, that Mr. Obama will use the courts.  More specifically the U.S. Supreme Court.  It has already been stated that Mr. Obama will have the opportunity to appoint at least two new judges with the possibility of a third.  While the religious right and social conservatives have mostly focused on these appointments as a way for the left to maintain Roe and pass FOCA; I submit to you that, while the aforementioned are important, the real “snake in the grass” – the most critical area for concentration, will be the interpretation of the 14th amendment.  In its current form it states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To any person with common sense, something that most liberals clearly lack, this amendment is straight forward.  When it was written, it sought to protect the civil rights of the then newly freed slaves (13th amendment circa 1865) by properly defining citizenship.  However, as Mr. Obama so eagerly revealed in the previously metioned interview, the Warren Court – in its application of the 14th amendment – was not nearly radical enough.  To Mr. Obama the Warren Court’s failure was that it did not address the issue of redistribution of wealth.  It is my contention that Mr. Obama will attempt to right this wrong through the appointment of like minded activist judges.   I believe that Mr. Obama hopes to create a Warren-esque Court, only more radical.  Mr. Obama will attempt to stack the bench with no less than five justices who are willing to not only legislate from the bench, but also willing to transform the constitution.    He would like for these judges to share his view of “economic justice” and shape the constitution accordingly by interpreting, or rewriting, the 14th amendment to provide all citizens an equal share of the economic pie.

During President Bush’s judicial appointment process, the Democrats used judicial litmus testing to reject or confirm appointments to the bench.  We learned, during the presidential campaign, that Barack Obama is in favor of judicial litmus testing.  Knowing this, one could safely bet on a reoccurance for Mr. Obama’s appointments.  The key difference is that the Democrats will be looking for activists, and the Republicans will be trying to block those types of appointments (I hope).  The tendency for Republicans will be to test based on the judge’s stance on Roe Vs Wade and FOCA.  I would caution them also to look carefully at that judge’s stance on domestic issues as well.  Mr. Obama intends to use his appointments to reshape forever this country through the constitution.  While it may begin with the bastardization of the 14th amendment, it most certainly will not end there.  It bares reminding what Mr. Obama’s idea of the constitution is.

 “[The Constitution] Says what the states can’t do to you… what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” 

Mr. Obama believes that the constitution should not be the limiting document that it is.  In that it shouldn’t describe what the government can not do.  He believes that it should, instead, describe what the government must do on your behalf.  Hold on to your wallets, folks, someone else may soon have a right to it.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »