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
A Strong President and a Few Judges could defy Congress and the State Legislatures and Govern as They Please
Woodrow Wilson became president in 1913. He was a progressive. And didn’t much care for our Founding Fathers. Or our Founding Documents. The Declaration of Independence. And the Constitution. He referred to our inalienable rights as a “great deal of nonsense.” Preferring to think of them as privileges granted by the government. Like kings once did. And as kings did not like limits on their power so did Wilson not like limits on his power. For government was a living thing that could grow and do great things. But to do great things it needed great men in leadership positions. Like him. Not hindered by the checks and balances of the Constitution. Or state legislatures. Or people clamoring about their inalienable rights.
This was the age of progressivism. When smart people were in government. Smarter than they ever were before. People who graduated from the finest institutions of higher learning. Or ran them. Like Wilson. Who was president of Princeton. Progressives were smarter than the average American. Who could take America to such great heights. If they could only keep the dumb people from interfering with their vision. And foolishly try to limit the power of the federal government. So, as president, Wilson got a lot of legislation passed that helped make the federal government more powerful. Such as creating the Federal Reserve System. A central bank that could print money as the government needed it. And enacting the first federal income tax since the American Civil War. With this new found wealth the federal government only needed one other thing to take America to great heights. Getting rid of the Constitution.
As much of what Wilson wanted to do exceeded his Constitutional authority he needed a way around that particular nuisance. The checks and balances of the Constitution. Especially after the Framers made it so difficult to add amendments. Requiring a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of Congress. And then ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Not a promising way to make radical changes in the structure of the federal government. So Wilson’s solution was not to amend the Constitution. But to go around the Constitution. With judicial activism. The president should appoint federal judges who share his views of abandoning the intent of the Framers. Thus consolidating power into fewer hands. So they could do more of what they wanted and less what the people wanted. A strong president and a few judges along the way could defy the Congress and the state legislatures and govern as they please. Reshaping America into their vision. Not the Founders’ vision. A progressive vision. Where these few enlightened and very smart individuals would do what was best for us. Even if we didn’t know what that was.
The New Deal was a Revolution made not by Tanks and Machine Guns but acts of Congress and Decisions of the Supreme Court
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) saw things the way Wilson did. FDR was all for radical change. And breaking away from the constraints of our Founding Documents. And his New Deal did just that. A radical change and expansion of the federal government. And to help get the people to embrace these changes in the long-term he introduced Social Security. To get even more people dependent on the federal government. A program so convoluted he reportedly said that it would be impossible to overturn. He empowered unions. He introduced payroll taxes to fund Social Security. He raised income taxes. Even tried to implement a heavy progressive tax that topped out at 100% for the very rich. And he introduced the withholding tax. As people’s tax bills were to grow so large there would have been push back had they had to write a check at the end of the year for the full amount. But if you took a little bit each pay period the total tax bill didn’t seem so high.
In FDR’s 1944 State of the Union speech he proposed a Second Bill of Rights. However, when talking about our Constitutional rights he called them “inalienable political rights.” By inserting the word ‘political’ those God-given rights of the Declaration of Independence became privileges granted by the government. Which was similar to the way Wilson saw those rights. As privileges granted by government. And privileges that government could take away. Thus emphasizing the power of the federal government over the individual. Making it easier to impose those new federal taxes. So what were those new rights? A good-paying job, adequate food and clothing, recreation, high farm prices for farmers, freedom from unfair competition, a decent home, medical care, a pension, unemployment insurance and a good education. Sound familiar? If you’re an old Soviet communist they do.
Chapter X of the 1936 Soviet constitution included a list of Fundamental Rights. Which included a right to a good-paying job, adequate food and clothing, recreation, medical care, a pension, and a good education. Among others. No surprise, really. As FDR was a fan of Joseph Stalin and what he was doing in the Soviet Union. The same kind of things he wanted to do. But he didn’t have the same freedoms Stalin had. There were such similarities that Whittaker Chambers, a Soviet spy in the US during the time of the New Deal wrote in his book Witness “the New Deal was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationship within the nation. It was not a revolution of violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking…made not by tanks and machine guns, but acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court…” Just like Wilson envisioned.
If Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Joseph Stalin were Alive Today they would likely Endorse Barack Obama and Joe Biden
Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government. Partly because he saw what a weak central government did to the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. And partly because he admired the greatness of the British Empire. He wanted an American Empire. Trusting that only men of virtue would serve in a republican government, he did not fear a federal government from overreaching, and abusing, their power. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison thought Hamilton was mad. And fought against him with every last fiber of their bodies. Because they knew that they couldn’t trust future members of their republican government to be men of virtue. As proven by Aaron Burr. Who lived during the time of the Founding Fathers.
The modern Democrat Party traces its roots back to Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Men hungry for power. And having little virtue. Today we call people like them Big Government liberal Democrats. Who have continued to advance the growth and power of the federal government. Approximately 20% of the population identifies themselves as liberals. And yet the liberals have greatly advanced their agenda. How? In large part through judicial activism. Using the courts to give them what the state legislatures or Congress won’t. Such as when a state passes a referendum on a liberal issue, such as redefining gay marriage, the liberals use the courts to overturn that act of democracy. Or any other that they disagree with.
Now that’s the kind of governing that Wilson and FDR would approve of. Even Joseph Stalin. More and more power centralized in the federal government. The ability to overturn legislation you don’t like. A revolution without violence. It doesn’t get any better than that. If Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Joseph Stalin were alive today they would likely endorse the Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Tags: 2012 election, 2012 Endorsements, checks and balances, Congress, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Democrat, Democrat Party, FDR, federal government, founding documents, Founding Fathers, Framers, inalienable rights, Joseph Stalin, judges, judicial activism, liberal, New Deal, privileges, Progressive, Social Security, Soviet, Stalin, state legislatures, Supreme Court, Wilson, Woodrow Wilson
Magna Carta led to Constitutional Monarchy and Representative Government
Medieval kings liked doing as they pleased. From living well. To expanding their kingdoms by force. Or trying to. As kingdoms got larger, though, this was more difficult to do. Because the larger the kingdom got the more food they had to produce. And kings didn’t feed their kingdoms from their castle vegetable gardens. They needed the wealthy and powerful landowners. Who owned the land. Grew the food. And provided the kingdom’s wealth.
These landowners made land valuable. By growing food on it. As famine was no stranger during the Middle Ages there was nothing more important than growing food. Those who did became wealthy. And their estates became mini kingdoms. With lots of peasants working the fields. And lots of soldiers to defend their land. And to fight for their king in times of war. Kings needed to maintain good relationships with these wealthy landowners. To keep them supporting their kingdoms. And to prevent any one of them from rising up and challenging the king for his throne.
King John of England was hurting his relationships with the wealthy landowners. He fought a lot of expensive wars across the English Channel in France. Which required high taxes on the English landowners. The barons. Worse, King John lost a lot of his battles in France. Losing the barons some of their Normandy lands. So the barons were becoming a little disgruntled with their king. And they rebelled. Eventually forcing the king to place his Great Seal on Magna Carta. Limiting his powers. It didn’t change things much at the time. But it would lead to constitutional monarchy. And representative government.
The Patriots of 1776 were none too keen on Creating a New Central Power
Kings don’t like limits on their power. King John would go on to renounce Magna Carta. And got the Pope’s approval to not honor the promises he made with the barons. But these barons sowed the seeds of representative government in England. And the Western World. Greatly influencing the Founding Fathers in America. Whose Constitution placed great limits on the government’s power.
The Americans were having some problems with their Articles of Confederation. The sovereign states were taking care of themselves. Sometimes at the expense of the other states. Or the new nation. And the new nation wasn’t making much progress in the international community. A bit of a laughing stock to other nations. Who were all sure it was only a matter of time before the American colonies would be British again. For once the war was over there was little united about the states anymore. So James Madison urged a meeting of the several states to revise the Articles of Confederation. To help make a more perfect union. And to move the new nation forward. They met in Philadelphia in 1787. And caused a firestorm. For they didn’t revise the Articles. They threw them away. And wrote a brand new Constitution.
This inflamed a lot of the Patriots of 1776. Who had voted to sever the bonds from a distant central power about a decade earlier. And they were none too keen on creating a new central power to replace the one they just banished. It took awhile but with the presence of George Washington and some words from Benjamin Franklin, two of the most trusted and experienced Americans who sacrificed a lot in securing their independence, they completed their task. It wasn’t a perfect document. But it was the best they were ever going to produce considering the sectional differences in the country. And they sent it to the states for ratification. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay helped to secure ratification by writing a series of articles that we know today as the Federalist Papers. Some of the finest Constitutional scholarship ever written.
As Few as Five People in Black Robes can Fundamentally Change the Nation
Key to the Constitution was the separation of powers that restricted the power of the new federal government that no one trusted. There was a legislature to write law. An executive branch to enforce law. And a judicial branch to interpret law. To make sure that the other two branches did not violate the Constitution. Such a system would have really crimped King John’s style. For the law was above all the people. Including the executive. He could only do the things the laws allowed him to do. And the things the laws allowed him to do he could only do if the legislature agreed to pay for them. It was a system of checks and balances that helped the nation to grow while maintaining personal liberty.
King John would have been particularly irked by the legislature. Made up by representatives of the people. Who enacted legislation that was in the best interest of the people. Not him. Fast forward to modern times and you find history littered with people who wanted to expand their power only to have that representative body of the people foil them. Ruling elites. Modern aristocrats. Those who feel an entitlement due to a superior education. A superior bloodline. Or simply like-minded people who would rather have the days of unlimited power like they had in Medieval Europe. Before the barons had to muck up the works with Magna Carta.
Over time they learned how to bring back some of the old ways. The easiest way was just to get people to vote for them. And they did this by giving them a lot of free stuff. But there were some things that they just couldn’t bribe out of the people. So they turned to the courts. And did a little legislating with activist judges. Sometimes bringing a suit all the way to the Supreme Court to create a law where there was no law. Abortion is now legal even though there was never any federal legislation addressing it. While there was plenty of state legislation forbidding it. Until seven men in black robes overruled the will of the people in those states.
The Supreme Court is powerful. For as few as five people in black robes can fundamentally change the nation. Which is why presidential elections are so important. Because presidents nominate judges to the Supreme Court. And those on the Left depend on the timely deaths and/or retirements of Supreme Court judges so they can nominate activist judges. To get a majority on the high court to rule in their favor on bad law. Such as Obamacare. An unpopular law. A law the majority of the people want repealed. A law that became law only with subterfuge (the mandate is not a tax). A law that clearly violated the Constitution (forcing people to buy something). Yet five people in black robes just fundamentally changed the nation by voting that Obamacare was Constitutional (the mandate is a tax). Which just goes to show you that where there is a will there is a way. A way to rule like a king. Against the will of the people.
Tags: activist judges, Articles of Confederation, barons, black robes, central power, Constitution, constitutional monarchy, courts, distant central power, England, executive, judges, judicial, King John, kingdoms, kings, landowners, law, legislation, legislature, liberals, Madison, Magna Carta, mandate, medieval kings, Obamacare, Patriots of 1776, representative government, Supreme Court, Supreme Court judges, taxes, wealth, wealthy landowners, will of the people
Week in Review
Representative government transferred the power from the privileged few to the people. And once they did things got better for the people. Because the government started serving the people instead of the people serving the government. And to keep it that way representative governments introduced separations of powers. And checks and balances. They created legislative bodies to write laws. Where legislators represented the people in proportion to the population. So laws represented the will of the people. And not minority interests.
Of course, this made it difficult to pass some laws. Especially those that went against the will of the people. So some found a way to get around the will of the people. By legislating from the bench. Where instead of needing a majority of hundreds of legislators you only needed a majority of a handful of judges. Which has been the legislative tool of choice for liberals to write laws. Using the judiciary to write law that they could not write in the legislature. Violating the separation of powers. And going against the will of the people. Such as making abortion legal in countries where the majority oppose it. Like the United States. And Ireland (see Ireland Takes Up Bill on Abortion Access by DOUGLAS DALBY posted 4/18/2012 on The New York Times).
One of the most deeply divisive issues in Irish society was reignited Wednesday night when the Irish Parliament began debate on a bill that would provide for limited access to abortion.
As in the United States, it was the Supreme Court here that legalized abortion, although in strictly limited circumstances. But in the 20 years since the decision in the “X Case,” successive governments have shied away from enacting the legislation needed to carry out the order…
“We believe that it is only a first step for abortion to be legalized in Ireland in all circumstances. We have waited long enough,” Ms. Daly said. “Over 100,000 Irish abortions have taken place in Britain for many different reasons, none of them easy, all of them valid. The hypocrisy, injustice and expense of having to travel to England for terminations, away from family and friends, is a disgrace.”
But in this conservative and Catholic nation, sentiment against abortion runs strong, and over the past few months anti-abortion groups have been pressuring politicians to oppose the bill, and are confident it will be defeated.
Governments shy away from putting abortion in the hands of the legislature. Especially in countries with large Catholic populations. Which is why there are no abortion laws on the books in the U.S. or Ireland. Just Supreme Court rulings that created an abortion law from the bench. As Supreme Court justices typically serve for life they don’t have to worry about the political fallout of their decisions. Which gives some a green light for judicial activism. Giving them leeway to disagree with laws they don’t like. Or creating laws they like that the people don’t. They can do this. Legislators can’t. Which is why they shy away from abortion law. Because a legislator usually has another election to try to win. And that isn’t easy to do when you go against the will of the people. As many found out in the U.S. after they voted for Obamacare. And lost their jobs in the 2010 midterm elections. Because they not only acted against the will of the people but against their own constituents.
Ireland is a Catholic country. And they take their Catholicism pretty seriously. Which is why so many Irish hate the English. Who are Protestant. If you’re not familiar with this history read up a little on it. Perhaps looking up some names like Elizabeth I, James I or the Earl of Stafford. Then you’ll get a feeling for the love between Irish Catholics and English Protestants. So the Irish are Catholic. And fiercely so. They stay true to their Catholic beliefs. Which includes an absolute opposition to abortion. Which is why there is no abortion law in Ireland. Only a Supreme Court decision. Until now, perhaps. As the Irish legislature is now debating this subject. What will the Irish Catholic do? Whatever they do one thing is for certain. It won’t make the issue any less divisive.
Tags: abortion, abortion law, Catholic, Catholic nation, Catholicism, checks and balances, England, Ireland, Irish, Irish Parliament, judges, judicial activism, legislating from the bench, legislators, legislature, Protestant, representative government, separations of powers, Supreme Court, will of the people, write laws