Tag Archives: Supreme Court

The Constitution Didn’t Die Today

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...
English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Constitution didn’t die today.

The whole point of the Constitution is that it is above, apart from, and not affected by whirling winds of change. Our interpretation may change and our nation may veer from the course it lays out, but it cannot die.

Democracy didn’t die, nor did the Republic. There was a set back, that is all. And this set back, for it’s high profile and broad reach, gives more energy to those who wish to see it repealed and redone than it does to those who want it kept and expanded.

Today it become crystal clear to ever more people just where the parties stand regarding the health of the nation and the prosperity of its citizens. Democrat leaders cannot hide from the fact they instituted one of the largest tax increases on every American in history during one of the harshest recessions. The Tea Party and lovers of liberty have a common and specific goal to direct Republicans towards. The battle lines have been drawn.

No, the Constitution cannot die. We the people shall see to it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Court Conformity: Proof In The Pudding

The proof is in the pudding, they say.

Timothy P. O’Neill claims the history and roots of the current members of the High Court are too similar, their backgrounds too homogeneous, to allow for true justice to be dispensed.

According to O’Neill, President Obama has an historic opportunity to correct the court. To broaden it’s foundation and strengthen it’s ability to work in this modern time with an open-minded understanding of our current situation.

Professor Lee Epstein of Northwestern has observed that “Diversity of inputs makes for stronger outputs.” Obama should cast the widest possible net to find a person who can bring a fresh set of experiences and perspectives to the work of the Supreme Court.

O’Neill claims as evidence of the problem the dearth of unanimous decisions in recent court history. And states as a possible cause the acrimonious attempted appointment of Bork and the travesty of political murder that borked Bork.

With the reticence of succeeding Presidents to propose any but established Federal judges to the high court, the court’s base has indeed narrowed, but is the non-unanimous nature of the court a bad thing?

I say not. And I say that a preconceived notion with an aim toward heterogeneity is not the solution to any problems the court now faces.

The purpose of the high court is to apply and interpret the law in difficult cases. It is not to have empathy or to make exceptions or to make law. Anything more or less than application and interpretation of the law is a failure and a grab for power not allocated to the judicial branch by the Constitution.

Reasonable people may disagree and the stress of disagreement slows down a mad human rush towards oblivion.

Such enforced conflict is not the best solution, but in our current era of stratified ideology, it’s pragmatic and effective.

The aim, in selecting judicial appointees, for any President, ought to be whether or not the person selected has an understanding and appreciation for the law. That is the only criteria which is reasonable.

Thomas Sowell counters with the basic argument of Constitutional rationality:

People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever are missing the point.

That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

That Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

It is always interesting to me that those who are so (mistakenly) tied up with the “Democracy” of America are so very un-Democratic about critical moral, cultural, and social issues. America is designed to be a Republic (if we can keep it) because of the innately sinful nature of man.

Those claiming the mantel of Democratic ideals are often the first to bypass them and the will of the people, or directly contravene it, by seeking attention and action from the legislative and judicial branches to impose their minority ideas upon the majority.

Fairness is too often very unfair for someone else, and the flip-side of tolerance is tyranny.

We are an equal society, say many. But Sowell cautions that this is often no more than smoke and mirrors:

We would have entered a strange new world where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.

Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.

We live in a society governed by the rule of law. Our society requires that it’s members be knowledgeable and intelligent and involved.

When we sacrifice knowledge and intelligence at the altar of equality we lose the ability to be involved.

As more and more power is usurped from it’s right and proper owners, we all lose.

Thomas Sowell ends his article with a somber warning we would all do well to heed:

The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues — whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law — what has been called “a government of laws and not of men.”

Under the American system of government, this cannot be done overnight or perhaps even during the terms in office of one president — but it can be done. And it can be done over time by the appointees of just one president, if he gets enough appointees.

Some people say that who Obama appoints to replace Souter doesn’t really matter, because Souter is a liberal who will probably be replaced by another liberal. But, if no one sounds the alarm now, we can end up with a series of appointees with “empathy” — which is to say, with justices who think their job is to “relieve the distress” of particular groups rather than to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Duh!?! And Other Interesting Stuff

First, the Duh!

Gay men get HIV, and they’re getting it faster. 12% faster, says a new CDC report.

And of course, to remind those hotheads whose brains have boiled out: HIV is the disease the US Government released in Africa to desimate the black population.

The rest of us know it’s transmitted by homosexual relations between men. And that it’s not bias or bigotry that caused it, but pride, willful ignorance, and the natural result of an unnatural act.

Now the Interesting Stuff

Investor’s Business Daily reports that an architect the the Canadian socialized health-care system, that one we hear is so incredible and worthy of emulation from the leftist socialist running for POTUS, has had a change of heart:

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says (Claude) Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

Counteracting the tales of woe and terror which are peppering the debate south of our northern border, the IBD tells a tale of truth which ought to give those considering the proposed socialized utopia pause:

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

Because she’s a woman, and it’s her ovaries, it’s a real tear-jerker.

No, the point is that the capitalistic, profit-based system provides better care to a greater number of people with two primary reasons:

  1. The costs cause people to evaluate themselves whether they really need that procedure, freeing the system from a glut of unnecessary and frivolous procedures.
  2. Those same costs entice more skilled labor and research and development into medical/technological advances, enhancing quality and quantity of available care.

Read more at IBD.

Republican ‘”Obama”, Only With History And Substance’ Jindal takes the hard line

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who has actually accomplished things in his life, was outraged over the Supreme Court’s liberal judges finding the death penalty is not applicable or valid for use in extreme cases of child rape, so he signed a bill allowing chemical castration in certain specific cases of rape and sexual abuse.

Sponsored by Democrat Senator Nick Gautreaux of Meaux, LA, arguments surrounding the bill were mostly on scope and effect, rather than validity and right.

It sounds like, unlike the members state houses in many of the states, the members of the Louisiana State House are a group who actually have backbones connected to their brains.

“Lie Back And Enjoy It”

The Lady Roxanne de Luca, contributing author at Haemet, has penned this gem regarding the recent Supreme Court decision finding it illegal to sentence those guilty of raping children to the death penalty:

(L)iberals have just written a Supreme Court opinion which is the jurisprudential equivalent of “If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.”

Well put Roxanne.

Here we have one more glaring reason why this election matters so very, very much.

Democrats Want Election Fraud

Found in the Chicago Defender:

With the presidential race in full swing, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could have a huge impact on the nation’s electoral system forever. It revolves around an Indiana statue that requires voters to show current state issued photo identification when they cast their ballots. Last Election Day, 61-year-old Valerie Williams attempted to vote in the lobby of her retirement home as she had the past two elections.

She and 31 others affiliated with the case [were not allowed to vote after failing to provide photo ID]. Most failed to comply with the law because they lacked the transportation to get to the local voting office to convert their provisional ballots into actual votes or couldn’t afford state issued identification. They represent as much as 12 percent of all voters, a disproportionate number of them elderly, poor, minorities or disable, who do not have government-issued photo identification.

Huh? I admit it’s sad that people are turned away from polls when people there could verify their identity. Maybe the law could allow for group living facilities which have already verified ID can speak for their members… but that gets into a whole ‘nother can of worms and allows further loopholes for fraud. Maybe states should have a cheap or free ID for those who don’t drive (Like California, I got my first official ID, which was not a drivers license, at 14 for less than 20 dollars).

When the elections can hinge on as few as 100 votes such as Florida in 2000, each vote counts. While you are worrying about disenfranchising (a big word which is used as a bugbear in our fearful society) the poor and elderly (popular poster-children of the bugbear bearing social activists). I’m worried about disenfranchising (see, I can use it too) myself and the millions of other voters who have worked hard and taken the appropriate steps to ensure I have proper identification necessary to function in this society. It is a slight requirement. We are aware of the need and we have a whole year, or two, to get it before needing it for the election.

You may not be aware of the severity of the issue: In Seattle, WA, hundreds of votes are entered by people all listing the Postal Office as their “home”. The assumption is their transients, but there is no proof of that. Any Joe or Sally with nefarious intent could easily register and vote, even though it is against the law to misrepresent your address on voter registration. The difficulty lies in verifying the address of the voter.

Requiring ID puts additional responsibility on the voter, but we do not live in a society where all things are given to us. Instead, we are given reasonable requirements and then allowed to do as we please.

Voter ID is a simple and effective way to mitigate the issue of voter fraud. Fraud disenfranchises everybody, lessening the effectiveness of each and every one of our votes.

Apparently it’s a GOP issue. The Democrats don’t want to stop any fraudsters, phonies, gangs, or assorted nefarious election scammers from exercising their desire to break the law and disenfranchise all of us law-abiding citizens. It’s those nasty Republicans who want to safe-guard the election for us average Joe’s and Jane’s by requiring reasonable levels of identity security into the process.

See my previous post on this for my solution to electronic voting, vote fraud, and voter ID.