Liberals pack the Judiciary with Liberal Judges to Write Law they can’t Write in Congress
Harry Reid and the Democrats went nuclear today. Changing the Senate rules for the first time since the Founding. To increase the power of those in the majority. So they can run roughshod over those in the minority. Thanks to the poor launch of Obamacare. And the sinking realization that because the Democrats have so angered the people in the process of implementing the Affordable Care Act (the president and Democrats lied and people are losing their health insurance and doctors) that Democrats up for election in 2014 are going to be thrown out with extreme prejudice. Turning the Senate over to the Republicans. Hence the need to go nuclear now.
It’s no secret the left legislates from the bench. Using judges to write legislation that Congress won’t. Such as making abortion legal via Roe v. Wade. That was a law made not by the law-makers. The legislature. Congress. But by liberal judges on the bench. Who are to interpret law. Not write it. But in Roe v. Wade, as in so many other laws that came to be that Congress refused to write, judges wrote law in their legal rulings. Allowing the liberal minority to make their will the law of the land.
America is a center-right country. Which means there are more conservatives than liberals. In fact, only about 21% of the people identify themselves as liberal while about 40% of the people identify themselves as conservative (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup). Yet this 21% has implemented a lot of their liberal agenda. How? Liberal judges. The key to changing the country against the will of the people. When you can’t get the people’s representatives to write your laws you turn to the judiciary. Which is why Harry Reid went nuclear today. So they can pack the judiciary with liberal judges. Before they lose the Senate. So they will be able to write law from the bench that they won’t be able to do after they lose the Senate.
The Filibuster is the Last Line of Defense for the Minority
The filibuster is a stalling tactic. A tool the minority can use to prevent the majority from running roughshod over them. To protect minority rights. For majority rule can be dangerous. The majority could write law that restricts the rights of the minority. Don’t like the internal combustion engine? Well, the majority could write legislation for a costly carbon tax. Of course, the Democrats don’t have a majority in the House. But they do have one in the Senate. Which confirms the president’s judicial appointments. So if the president stacks the courts with liberal judges the left can get their carbon tax. By writing regulations for a carbon tax instead of legislation. And having the courts make that regulation law. With the left saying that they had that right under their environmental regulatory powers. And if you don’t like that sue us.
This is why the left wants to stack the courts with liberals. Who may or may not be actual judges. For they don’t want judges to interpret law. They want them to write law that Congress won’t. If the right sues the government for exceeding their constitutional authority and the case ends up in a court packed with liberal judges the right will lose. And the unconstitutional regulation will become law. Despite the Republican-controlled House.
The right has been holding up some exceptionally liberal Obama appointees to the bench. Frustrating the left. Because they can’t move their liberal agenda through the Republican held House of Representatives. While their plan B—stacking the courts—was being blocked by the Republicans because the Democrats did not have 60 Senators in the Senate. For if they did they could invoke cloture. End debate. And force a vote. Which they would, of course, win. Making the filibuster the last line of defense for the minority. For if the judicial appointment only appeals to the 21% of the population the minority can filibuster until they withdraw the appointment. And appoint someone that doesn’t appeal ONLY to 21% of the population.
When the Democrats were in the Minority they said Opposition to the Republicans was Patriotic
Back when the Republicans held the Senate during the George W. Bush administration the Democrats were holding up Bush appointees. The Republicans broached the subject of the nuclear option. And the left attacked Republicans. Calling it a power grab. An affront to the Founding Fathers. The worst thing that could happen to our republic. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats spoke on the record opposing the nuclear option. But that was then. This is now. After the rollout of Obamacare. And the very likely possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2014. Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al are all for the nuclear option.
Because the Republicans are so partisan the left had no choice. They simply wouldn’t rubber-stamp the liberal agenda. So they had no choice but to grab power. To run roughshod over those in the minority in Congress. So the minority in the nation can impose their rule on the majority. When the Democrats were in the minority in Congress they said opposition to the Republicans was patriotic. That it made the republic healthier. Locking the Congress into gridlock because they couldn’t get their way was fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers. By preventing one-party rule.
But all that changes when they are in the majority. And those in the 21% are fine with it. Those in the mainstream media. Hollywood. Late-night television. Even the audiences of the late-night television shows. Who are all for debate when they are out of power. But are fine with one-party rule when they are in power. Because they believe that their side is the only side that matters. Which is decidedly NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned. The left believes everyone should think like they think. And if they don’t there should be laws to compel people to act like they (the left) think they should act. Even if it requires violating the Constitution. Like Obamacare forces people to buy something against their will for the first time in the history of the republic. But expecting people to pay for their own birth control instead of forcing others to pay for it? Why, that’s an affront to the Founding Fathers. Making any law-violating power grab acceptable. As long as it’s the left doing the law-violating and the power-grabbing. For the left believe the end justifies the means. Just like the Nazis did. The communists. And other tyrannical regimes have throughout time.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, conservatives, courts, Democrats, filibuster, Founding, Founding Fathers, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, judges, judiciary, legislate from the bench, legislature, Liberal Agenda, liberal judges, liberals, majority, minority, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear, nuclear option, Obamacare, one-party rule, power grab, regulations, Republic, Republicans, Senate, Senate rules
The Power Brokers in Washington dismiss the Rand Paul Filibuster as another Kook Libertarian/Tea Party Thing
The Rand Paul filibuster caused quite the stir. For it’s been a while since we had an old-school talking filibuster on the Senate floor. Senator Paul was delaying a vote on confirming John Brennan as CIA director. Over the drone policy of the Obama administration. He talked for about 13 hours. All to get an answer from the Obama administration. He wanted the administration to answer definitively that the U.S. would not kill American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike without due process if that American citizen posed no imminent threat. But getting that admission was akin to pulling teeth.
Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul. Who is a libertarian. And a bit of a kook to the Washington establishment. Both on the Left and the Right. Because he goes on and on about the gold standard. The Constitution. And America fighting wars we shouldn’t be fighting. If it were up to him he would bring all American forces home. And he would stop those drone strikes. Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are/were members of the Republican Party. Constitutional conservatives. And libertarians. Who the Washington establishment looks at as kooks. Rand Paul is even worse. For he is a member of the Tea Party movement. A group of people the Washington establishment also looks upon as a bunch of kooks.
So the power brokers in Washington look at Rand Paul as just another kook. And were quick to dismiss this filibuster as another example of how crazy these libertarian/Tea Party kooks were. But there was only one problem. Was someone who was trying to get an evasive government to admit that they wouldn’t kill Americans on U.S. soil without due process even if that American posed no imminent threat a kook? This was something the Left was supposed to do. Speak truth to power. To protect American citizens from an out of control federal government. And here was Rand Paul fighting that fight. A Tea Party Constitutional conservative libertarian.
The Republican Old Guard is trying to Distance Themselves from the Tea Party and the Constitutional Conservatives
The Left attacked the Bush administration over the Patriot Act. Which included those warrantless wiretaps on Americans who were speaking to known terrorist threats in a foreign country. They assailed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the water-boarding of three terrorists. Including one who gave up information that led us to Osama bin Laden. Now it was their president whose administration appeared out of control. Whose attorney general would not come out and say that they would not kill Americans on U.S. soil with a drone strike without due process even if they posed no imminent threat. Something was very wrong with this picture.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart owes its success to the Republican Party. For the show’s one purpose in life is to attack and belittle Republicans. Which their liberal audience enjoys. Responding with enthusiastic applause and laughter whenever Stewart skewers any Republican. Or any institution or cause that is important to them. However, Jon Stewart, even though he disagrees with pretty much everything Rand Paul stands for, did not ridicule Senator Paul for his filibuster. For the Obama administration’s unwillingness to state for the record that they would not kill Americans on U.S. soil with a drone strike without due process even if they posed no imminent threat clearly bothered him. Even if it didn’t bother the Washington establishment. Including the Old Guard of the Republican Party. Who did ridicule Senator Paul.
The Republican Old Guard is trying to distance themselves from the Tea Party. And the Constitutional conservatives. Instead they endlessly bend over backwards to try to get the opposition to like them. Always unwilling to rock the political boat. They won’t criticize the president. Or do anything that may upset the Independents and moderates. Such as saying the president is going to kill Americans on American soil with drone attacks. Which really wasn’t the issue of the filibuster. It was the administration’s apparent desire to have the legal right to do so. This is what upset Senator Paul. As well as Jon Stewart. The ACLU. Code Pink. And Amnesty International. Who found the Obama administration’s evasive answer on the subject disturbing. Putting the Republican Old Guard on the wrong side of this issue.
The Democrats are Playing the Republican Old Guard to Advance their Agenda
So why is the Republican Old Guard on the wrong side of this issue? Because they listen too much to their friends in the Democrat Party. Who are always giving them advice on how to appeal to more voters. To attract more women. Blacks. Hispanics. People who typically vote Democrat. And how can the Republicans get these Democrat-voting people to vote Republican? Easy. Just act more like Democrats. Hence their not criticizing the president. And why they are distancing themselves from the conservative Republican base. The Tea Party. And the Constitutional conservatives. Because that’s what Democrats do. And Democrats are getting more women, blacks and Hispanics to vote for them. Ergo, if the Republicans just act like them they will get more women, blacks and Hispanics to vote for them.
Anyone see the flaw in this plan? If these people typically vote for Democrats why would they vote for Republicans acting like Democrats when they can just as well vote for the people they typically vote for? Democrats? For a Democrat is unlikely to stop behaving like a Democrat. But is a Republican as unlikely to stop acting like a Democrat? When there are Tea Party and Constitutional conservatives out there that may be vying for their seat in the next primary election? If we’ve learned anything from the 2012 Republican primary election it’s this. Republicans try to move farther to the right than their primary opponents. To appeal to the Tea Party and Constitutional conservatives in their base. And the more they act like Democrats while in office the harder that will be to do. Something no doubt Democrat voters keep in mind when they consider these Democrat-light Republican candidates.
Does anyone see another flaw in this plan? Of Democrats helping Republicans to get more women, black and Hispanic voters? Granted the Democrat Party is the party of altruism and welfare. They’re the ones who want to offer a hand-up. To feed the hungry. To house the homeless. To be the father/husband for single mothers. To provide free preschool. Free school lunches. And breakfasts. Free health care. Etc. They just want to give and help as many people as possible. But do they really want to help Republicans? Their political rivals? Those people who vote against handouts (what others call a hand-up), food for the hungry, houses for the homeless, fathering/husbanding single mothers, free preschool, free school lunches, breakfasts, free health care, etc. Of course they don’t. The Democrats are just playing the Republican Old Guard. Getting some of them to vote their way to attract the voters that will never vote for them. To advance their agenda. While using them to marginalize their greatest threat. The Tea Party. And Constitutional conservatives. Anyone who doubts this just needs to ask themselves one question. Why would Democrats want to help Republicans appeal to more voters when they want to beat them in elections? They wouldn’t. Something everyone can see. Except the Republican Old Guard. Who are so blind that they choose the wrong side of the ‘killing Americans on American soil without due process’ issue.
Tags: American citizens, conservative, Constitutional conservative, Democrat, Democrat Party, drone, drone policy, drone strike, due process, filibuster, Jon Stewart, kooks, libertarian, Obama administration, Old Guard, power brokers in Washington, Rand Paul, Rand Paul filibuster, Republican, Republican Old Guard, Republican Party, Senate, Senator Paul, Tea Party, Washington establishment
Trusting that only Good People will Serve in Government is Sheer Folly
History has been a struggle for power. Those who wanted it fought those who had it. And those who had it tried to eliminate anyone who didn’t have it but wanted it. So people have killed each other since the dawn of time for power. Making for a rather Hobbesian existence. “Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” A quote from Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Where he posits that only an all powerful dictator can provide a just society. Otherwise there would be great unrest and civil wars. Such as was going on in England at the time he wrote Leviathan.
England, though, would choose a non-Hobbesian path. Choosing to restrict the powers of their monarch with a represented body of the people. Parliament. Evolving into what John Adams once called the best system of government. A constitutional monarchy where power was balanced between the few, the many and the one. The few, the rich, paid the taxes that the one, the king, spent. The common people were the many. Who had a say in what the rich and the king could do. So everyone had a say. And no one group, the majority, the minority or the one, could do whatever they wanted. Which is why John Adams once thought it was the best system of government.
John Adams wanted a strong executive in the new United States. Not a hereditary king. But something close to the king of England. Who would advance the new nation to greatness. And with disinterested men of the Enlightenment serving in the new government Adams didn’t worry about any abuses of power. For this wasn’t Great Britain. But not everyone had Adams’ confidence in the nobility of men. Worrying that given the chance they would try to form a new nobility. As James Madison said in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” And that was the problem. Men are not angels. And trusting that only good men would serve in government was sheer folly. So we should form governments under the assumption that bad people would reach positions of power. And thus limit the power of government.
Today both Houses of Congress win Elections by Appealing to Populism
So the Americans settled on a similar system. They separated powers between a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. Further, they separated the legislature into two bodies. The House of Representatives. And the Senate. Representation in the House being apportioned by population. The more populous a state the greater that state’s representation. And the greater influence they had in writing law. They chose their representatives by popular vote. Making it truly the house of the people.
The states, though, feared a tyranny of the majority. Where the largest states could have their way. And force the smaller states to accept their rule. For in a true democracy the majority could vote anything into law. Such as the subjugation and oppression of a minority group. Like the Nazi Party passed legislation subjugating and oppressing the Jews. So minorities need protection from majorities. In the United States the Senate provided a check on majority rule. For each state had equal representation. Each state had two senators. And to further protect the interests of the states (and their sovereignty) the states chose their senators. A constitutional amendment changed this later. Which weakened the sovereignty of the states. By making the Senate a true democracy. Where the people could vote for the senators that promised them the most from the treasury.
Today both houses of Congress win elections by appealing to populism. Representatives and Senators are, in general, no longer ‘disinterested men of the Enlightenment’ but pure politicians trying to buy votes. Which is what James Madison worried about. The people in government are not angels. And they’re becoming less like angels as time goes on. Proving the need of a separation of powers. And a bicameral legislature. To keep any one group, or person, from amassing too much power. So there can be no tyranny of the many. No tyranny of the few. And no tyranny of the one.
The Obama Administration can’t use the Military to Kill Suspect Americans on U.S. Soil
Senator Rand Paul just recently completed a 13 hour filibuster on the floor of the Senate. To delay the vote to confirm John Brennan as CIA director. Not because he had a problem with Brennan. But because he had a problem with the Obama administration. Specifically with Attorney General Eric Holder. Senator Paul had asked Holder if the Obama administration could use a drone to kill an American on American soil without due process even if that person posed no imminent threat. The attorney general gave his answer in a letter. In which he didn’t say ‘no’. Which bothered Senator Paul. Because the Obama administration had killed an American or two on foreign soil without due process. Including the son of a guy that posed an imminent threat. While the son did not.
U.S. drone strikes have killed many terrorists overseas. And they’ve killed a lot of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune to be in the same vicinity. Such as being in the same coffee shop. Basically a policy of ‘kill them all and let God sort them out’. But you don’t hear a lot about this collateral damage. As the Obama administration simply counts all the dead from a drone strike as being a terrorist that posed an imminent threat to U.S. security. And the innocent son that was killed in a drone strike? Well, he should have chosen a better father. Or so said a member of the Obama administration. Which is what so bothered Senator Paul. For in the War on Terror the battlefield is worldwide. Including the United States. Which means given the right set of circumstances the Attorney General of the United States stated the government had the legal right to use a drone to kill an American on U.S. soil without due process.
In the United States there is a thing called the Constitution. Which guarantees American citizens due process. If you’re an American fighting Americans on foreign soil you have no Constitutional protections. And can be killed by a drone strike without due process. But if you’re on U.S. soil you have Constitutional protections. Which means the government can’t use the military to kill suspect Americans. No. On U.S. soil we have police forces. And courts. Miranda rights. On U.S. soil you have to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant. Then you have to collect evidence to present in a trial. And then you have to convince a jury of a person’s guilt. Then and only then can you take away a person’s freedom. Or life. Thus protecting all Americans from the tyranny of the one. The tyranny of the few. And the tyranny of the many.
Tags: American soil, angels, Constitution, Constitutional protections, democracy, disinterested men, drone, drone strikes, due process, England, Enlightenment, Eric Holder, filibuster, Hobbesian, House, imminent threat, James Madison, legislature, Leviathan, majority, minority, Obama administration, populism, power, Rand Paul, Senate, Senator Paul, separation of powers, terrorist, tyranny, tyranny of the few, tyranny of the many, tyranny of the one