It adjudicates the law as written. When Randall Terry said that these judges in the Casey ruling let "us" down--the Christians, the conservatives, the pro-life contingent, whoever--he implied there was an ideology they were meant to represent, a loyalty that they had apparently abandoned. But this kind of thinking is very dangerous. Even though I agree with Randall Terry's general position on the morality of abortion, I disagree with the way he responded to the court. I'm looking at an underlying current here, actually not underlying anymore, it's an overlying current that is very dangerous.
This dangerous pattern is something that both liberals and conservatives are victimized by. To put it simply, when we address issues of the Court, if we start arguing with the Court's decision on a moral basis as opposed to a legal basis, we fall into the same trap.
Let me illustrate this for a minute because I realize some who are listening are going to think that the kind of thing that I'm saying now is completely contrary and opposite to the kind of thing that I've said for the last two and a half years on the air. Certainly, we do reason moralistically in the marketplace. The question really that I'm addressing is whether it's appropriate to reason that way in the courts.
Ted Cruz goes after Supreme Court for ‘judicial tyranny’
Or does the court have a particular job and is that job limited and is it limited for a purpose? I would argue they have a particular job. It is a very limited job. It is limited for a very good purpose and that limitation protects you and I from tyranny. As they were departing after having shared lunch together Hand, in a moment of effervescence and enthusiasm, raised his voice after the retreating Holmes in a final salutation, "Do justice, sir, do justice. Touchstone, , p. Let that sink in a moment. Here's what I mean. There is a movie you all should see for a number of reasons, not the least of which has to do with the comments that are made in the film about this issue.
But you'll have to go to the "Classics" section of the video store because precious little work has been produced in the past three decades that approaches the moral and intellectual magnitude of this film. The movie is called "A Man for All Seasons. He was a man of tremendous mental acumen, a fine legal mind, a great Christian, a martyr. This issue of the law that we're discussing came up in the film. When Roper, the somewhat self-righteous suitor of Moore's daughter, asked Moore if he'd even give the devil the benefit of law, he said, "Yes.
What would you do, cut a great road through the law to get after the devil. Sir Thomas Moore responded, "Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down Yes, I give the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. You see, the danger today is that this principle has largely been abandoned.
Judicial tyranny | Deseret News
The law, the Constitution, is less and less something particular that can offer an unchanging standard. Instead revisionist judges see the Constitution as a "living document," changing from generation to generation, and therefore they can ignore the original intent of the framers. In one sense, as Moore put it, the laws are going flat and the winds are beginning to blow. But, I contend, it is only the original intent that can protect us from judicial tyranny.
Now let's talk just a minute about balance of power because this is really what's at issue here. This is the protective element that keeps us from being tyrannized by any segment of the government. It is the elected official's job to pass just laws. It's their job because they have accountability to the electorate. Judges, on the other hand, are only accountable to the law. They are not accountable to the electorate. They are not to be swayed by public opinion. For balance to work, they must be accountable to the law.
That's the problem with judges legislating from the bench.
There are no controls. Instead of sticking to the Constitution, today's revisionist judges are adjudicating on that which is not law. When they do that, they have both feet planted, as Dr. Francis Schaeffer said, in midair. This does not produce any kind of civil stability. This introduces the whole problem with the so-called "litmus test.
The expectation is that if a judge has a particular ideology--and therefore passes the test--then his decisions will reflect that ideology. I have to confess, when I first heard that President Bush claimed he never discussed the abortion issue with any of his nominees I found it hard to believe. But now I understand why that wasn't necessary. Bush was concerned with judicial philosophy--as he should have been--and not with ideology.
The teaching that a woman has a fundamental right to an abortion is not in the Constitution; it was the creation of a liberal court legislating personal ideology from the bench. Seating pro-life judges in the court only compounds the problem of bringing ideological battles into the courtroom. There is another way to resolve this issue.
Bush knew that a judge with a conservative view of law --not necessarily a conservative view of the issues--would solve the problem.
If you let the Constitution be what it was meant to be and let the Court function the way it was meant to function, Roe would be overturned because judges that are not revisionists but are committed to original intent will not find a right to abortion in the Constitution because it's just not there. Strict constructionists will not read into the Constitution something that's not there.
This is precisely why conservatives don't need a litmus test of their judges and liberals demand one.
Congress Must Act: Judicial Tyranny is a National Security Emergency
They demand one because they must get an elitist court to accomplish for them what they have not been able to achieve democratically. And that is tyrannous. It is not the judge's job to do good. The strategy for open borders leftists is simple: How many jihadists have and will continue to enter our nation from countries listed in the order, which contain even more radicals, and uncertain vetting than Uzbekistan?
How much more bloodshed do we have to endure until we put an end to such a dangerous abuse of power? Unless we take action to reform our courts, who we elect, and what legislation is passed, means nothing. All the opposition party needs to do is find one radical on the bench who will rule in their favor, regardless of how ludicrous the reasoning. But they must act now, before another radical jihadist enters our nation as a result of such dangerous civil disobedience by our rogue courts. Federal Judge Strikes Down Obamacare. Townhall columnists Brigitte Gabriel.
Related Judicial Tyranny
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved