- Politics and Social Issues»
- Politics & Political Science
Liberal Judicial Tyranny
Leftist Judicial Tyranny
Tyranny as defined by dictionary.com is, “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”. According to the free dictionary a despot is, “a person who wields power oppressively” or, “a person with absolute power”! Judicial tyranny in America occurs when judges bypass Constitutional limitations and become a law unto themselves. Judges abuse their constitutional role by stepping into a policy making role rather than acting as a neutral arbitrator in interpreting the Constitution.
Examples of Leftist Judicial Tyranny
In the 1990’s the state of Nevada voted twice to have an amendment to their state constitution requiring a two-thirds majority vote for tax increases. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled to increase the tax by one billion dollars thereby nullifying will of over a million Nevadans by a simple court majority ruling.
In 2000 the state of New Jersey tried to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual scout leaders. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale the Supreme Court narrowly affirmed the Boy Scouts First Amendment rights in a 5-4 decision, with all the court liberals dissenting. Later the courts used this decision to drive the Boy Scouts off public property.
In 2002 the California US 9th circuit court of appeals, ruled the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional based on the First Amendment’s Establishments Clause. The court ruled that the phrase “under God” in the pledge constituted an establishment of religion. In 2006 the same litigant, the atheist attorney Michael Newdow, brought a suit to have “in God we trust” removed from our currency, because of the establishment clause. Fortunately a federal judge rejected his claim but only on the grounds that it didn’t dictate anyone’s belief.
In 2003 The Us Supreme Court upheld a policy of the University of Michigan to have an affirmative action program. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner reasoned that diversity trumped the clear meaning of The Constitution. Diversity trumps the clear meaning of the Constitution, whose country is this; does it belong to a group of black robed tyrants or “we the people”?
In 2003 the Florida Supreme court nullified a state law requiring the parents of under aged girls to be notified before obtaining they obtain an abortion.
In 2004 Queens Superior Court Justice Laura Blackburne, aided robbery suspect Derek Sterling in evading arrest. Sterling was under arrest for a mugging charge in connection with a drug offense. Upon hearing of Sterling’s imminent arrest, Judge Blackburne, harried him away through a private exit reserved only for court personnel, for the purpose of helping him avoiding arrest by an NYPD detective who had entered the court building to place Sterling in custody. Two years prior to this Judge Blackburne ordered all 13 charges be dropped against a suspected cop killer because of supposed delays to the trial. She freed him without bail and even refused to restore the charges against him later on. The only consequence for the actions of Judge Blackburne was that she was reassigned to civil court. Queens’s county district attorney Richard A. Brown admitted that Blackburne should have been removed from the bench but refused to take any action against her.
In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled on a case that sparked a public outcry involving the rights of private property owners in Kelo v. City of New London. The court liberals with the aid of Justice Kennedy ruled to condemn a property for the purpose of economic development. The court reasoned that property can be condemned for the purpose meeting the diverse and always evolving needs of society. Originally eminent domain was restricted only to public use in which the government had to use the property themselves. Now public use has evolved to mean public purpose, with the courts of deciding what public purpose is. The courts have destroyed property values through various means including court imposed regulations, for the purpose redistributing property to whatever cause they deem to be in the public interest.
In 2005 there was a case in which Christopher Simmons was convicted of premeditated burglary and murder of Shirley Crook. Simmons, with the aid of several accomplices’ broke into Crooks’ residence, bound and gagged her and drowned her by throwing her into a river. The Supreme Court liberals with the aid of Justice Kennedy ruled to shield Simmons from the death penalty because he was 17 years old. Justice Kennedy opined that at 17, the defendant was still struggling with his identity therefore it should be viewed as a lesser offense. Later the youth bragged about his exploits, while his victim is buried under ground leaving behind heartbroken and angry family members. Is the meticulous planning of a robbery and then a murder to silence the victim the result of childish immaturity and identity issues? I think not!
In 2010 a US District judge ruled the national day of prayer to be unconstitutional thereby denying the clear meaning of the Constitutions Free Exercise Clause. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham was removed from the Pentagon prayer service. Many believe that President Obama was behind Graham’s ouster because of Graham’s criticism of radical Islam. President Obama declared overseas that America is no longer a Christian nation while maintaining America to be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. President Obama chose not to participate in the National Day of Prayer but has chosen to observe the tradition of celebrating Ramadan at the White House. While it is true that the president has been friendly at times to Christian interests, the president’s apparent disregard for Christianity seems to have emboldened liberal judges to ignore the First Amendment rights of Christians.
In 2010 Federal judge Vaughn Walker declared proposition 8, which prohibits a California state recognition of gay marriage, to be null and void. He reasoned that the justification for gay marriage is found in the 9th and 14th Amendments, something that no former court has ever acknowledged. He likewise reasoned homosexual marriage to be an inalienable (God given) right. This ruling negated the will of millions of California voters. Similar initiatives prohibiting gay marriage have been promoted in 31 states with overwhelming voter support. Judge Walker condescendingly declared the people’s decision to be irrational and motivated by moral disapproval. But there are many laws motivated by moral disapproval, for example the laws opposing incest, polygamy, and prostitution. If moral disapproval is no basis for laws what should be the basis for laws, personal opinions, what most people think, international laws,don’t laugh this has become a factor in deciding cases for liberal judges.
Who is the final arbitrator of constitutional questions in America?
Minority Rights and Judicial Independence
Much of the rationale of liberal judges for opposing the will of the vast majority of the people is the protection of minority rights and judicial independence. While it is true that judges are somewhat insulated from the public for the purpose of not being caught up in the political passions and fads, the Founders made it clear the majority must prevail.
As described by George Washington:
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins (requires) that the will of the majority shall prevail.
Thomas Jefferson concurs:
“The will of the majority is the natural law of every society and is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.”
Contrary to the liberal idea that the courts are the best protectors of minority rights, the courts have had a very poor record in this regard. For instance in 1875 Congress banned segregation in a majority vote, in 1882 the Supreme Court struck down Congresses decision and it wasn’t till 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that the courts finally banned segregation. Minority rights have been best kept by the will of the majority. Congress, not the courts, has been a better guardian of the people’s rights because of their proximity and accountability to the voters.
There are a number of remedies to the problems created by arrogant and unaccountable liberal judges. Congress has the power to determine court’s jurisdiction and the nature of cases that come before it. Many today are under the impression that judges can only be removed for criminal misconduct but this is not true. Congress can also remove judges by impeachment for many reasons other than criminal misconduct, although Congress has not recently chosen to enforce these provisions. These include usurping the power of Congress (making policy), personal misconduct, and regularly ignoring the interests of people.