WHY LIBERAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS THE ENEMY OF YOUR FREEDOM

What would you think if Congress decided a court case, rendered a verdict and declared a defendant guilty or innocent?

Outrageous, yes? Yet conversely, courts vote on legislation all the time and no one blinks an eye. We’ve grown used to abuse. That’s exactly what judicial activism is–when judges abusively act as legislators or executives without bothering to stand for election.

Theoretically, activism could be conservative or liberal. But we haven’t seen conservative activism in our lifetimes. All of it has come from liberals.

Say a court decided that the “provide for the common defense” Clause of the Preamble dictated that the military services must hire five million soldiers and draft them if necessary. That would be a “conservative” activism. But conservative or liberal, those are political decisions for the elected branches. By standing for election, that gives you a say in the matter.

Sen. Leahy has tried to label conservative decisions as “activism” because they overturn a law of Congress. But that’s not the definition. The court must always either affirm or deny a law unless we have a rubber stamp court. Activism is when the court stretches the words of a law beyond recognition, or makes words mean the opposite of their common meanings, or judges simply substitute their preference for those of lawmakers–or you.

When a judge says there is something is in the Constitution that only he with his X-ray glasses can see, he is stealing your “Consent” to be “Governed”, the one thing that sets free people apart. He is saying you already agreed with him long, long ago, when, in fact, you did no such thing.

Through our representatives, we gave our consent to the Constitution and its various amendments–but the judge now says those amendments mean the exact opposite of what we thought they meant when we agreed to them. In business, that’s called “contract fraud”. You thought you were marrying Cinderella, but when you lift the veil to kiss the bride, the judge has substituted the ugly step-sister Druzilla.

Consider yourself lucky; it could have been Barney Frank. Have a nice honeymoon!

Obama has said he wants judges to rule based on “empathy”. That’s just a nicer way to say “bias”. In fact, for all the fancy degrees on the wall, it amounts to little more than tribalism. Basically, it says that a judge who was raised poor, Latino and female should rule in favor of defendants who are poor, Latino and female. That’s not law, but its opposite–unless we mean the Law of the Jungle.

Of course judges use their life experience, including empathy and even diversity. In his thoughtful and compelling dissent in “Kelo”, Justice Thomas mentioned the experience of black Americans with forced urban renewal, an experience Justice Souter never gained back home in his hollow log. So empathy and diversity have a limited place–but Democrats have carried them to extremes until empathy becomes bald favoritism, a “justice via biography” , based on who your grandparents were. And diversity becomes ruthlessly coerced mandatory government bean-counting.

Liberals engage in judicial activism because democracy is hard. You have to convince your fellow citizens, get legislators elected, get laws written and signed by mayors, governors or presidents, and then defend those laws in court. And amendments are even tougher!

How much easier to simply have a judge invent and decree your favorite policies out of thin air. Why, its almost like magic! The only election you have to win is the verdict, and with liberal judges, you win every election, every single time!

It’s the only way liberals can get their craziest policies enacted. People would never willingly vote to free vicious repeat criminals or stop the Navy from using SONAR to defend us or force Boy Scouts to camp out with militant gay activists or a thousand other crazy ideas–but a judge will. It’s easier than cheating because it is cheating.

Another attraction is because it allows politicians to get their extreme policies enacted–without being held accountable for those policies themselves! They can just blame it on those darn judges, *wink*wink*.

Liberal activism is great–if you’re just tired of freedom and self-government and you simply wish to be told what to do. Or if you just want to short-circuit the rules so that you always win.

But for real Americans, its the kind of arrogant authoritarianism that already led us to rebel once in 1776. We don’t need another Revolution–we need the one we already had.